DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00508

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011031.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  To whom it may concern,

I believe the record to be unjust in the following when I first meet Chief M_ of barrack Bravo at Navy Aviation Technical Trainnig Center (N.A.T.T.C.) Pensacola, Florida.  He told me he would do everything in his power to get me kicked out of his Navy, ask if I was from Texas, and called me a white honkey.  Now I know I did wrong, cursed everything under the blue moon at him, and accepted my punishmeet in restriction.  Also paid $1002.00, with the sixty-five days restriction.  To be kicked out is not right and Chief M_, with all do respect, racist.  I tried to speak with Chief M_ several times but, he shut me out of his way.  I spoke with the Chaplin twice and he could do nothing for me.  When Iwent to Captain's Mast, Iwent up before a stacked brickhouse (everyone was againist me).  I tried for an appeal and did not get past the Command Master Chief.  I would have liked to talk to the Captain.  I really did'nt get a caance at serving the United States of America.  I have messed up in the past and would like to make up for it, for my, family and country!  Please give the, (applicant), a chance to
Fulfill my dreams, also be a part of something great and the best Navy ever known to mankind!  It is hard to get a job with the O.T.H. (Other Than Honorable) discharge that I currently have.  I finished my "A" School at Pensacola, was awaiting orders and, screwed up royally.  Of coarse Chief M_ (black) jumped on it.

Sincerlv,

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990527 - 991024	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991025		Date of Discharge:  000519

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  06  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000427:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): (1) Disrespectful in language towards a First Class Petty Officer on 28Mar00, (2) Disrespectful in language towards a Chief Petty Officer on 28Mar00, violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Destruction of property other than military property of the United States on 26Apr00, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Stole a military uniform a value of $100.00 on 26Apr00, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): (1) Drunk and disorderly on 28Mar00, (2) Soliciting another to commit an offense, to wit: to shred his student data record on 26Apr00.
	Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000427:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000427:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

000509:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000510:	Chief of Naval Education and Training directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1.  The Board was not persuaded that the applicant’s chain of command treated him in an inequitable or improper manner.  The applicant received non-judicial punishment for offenses that could have been triable at a court-martial.  His actions reflected willful misconduct and warranted separation under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls10.jag.af.mil".

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023