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

 ex-AKAA, USNR(TAR)
Docket No. ND01-00723

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government.  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 011127.  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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Please upgrade my discharge from General under honorable conditions to an Honorable Discharge.  Please consider the following issues:

While in the Navy I received an award for excellent job performance, two promotions, completed a college course, and earned a Fork Lift license.

Youth, immaturity and a lack of education impaired my ability to serve.  I was only eighteen and had a ninth grade education.

My difficulties in the Navy arose from a number of minor offenses like being late to work, but there were no serious offenses.

Some of my difficulties arose from being assigned a roommate who was a known trouble maker and drug user.  My reputation suffered as a result of this association, an association which was assigned to me and was not by my choice.  Non-Commissioned Officer had every reason to scrutinize this man and this indirectly reflected upon me.

Fatigue impaired my ability to serve.  I did not take vacation time and accrued many weeks of unused leave in less than two years.

Remaining in the service and completing my tour was very important to me.  My tour of duty was almost completed when they discharged me.

Since discharge I have completed training at the New Hampshire Technical College, earned a CDL Class A License to drive tractor trailers, and am employed full time.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Reference Letters (4)
Employee Evaluation Reward System 
Copy of Employment Timesheet
Transcript from New Hampshire Vocational Technical College
Employment Reference Letter 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  USN 			None
	Inactive: USNR 		None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970829		Date of Discharge:  990827

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  11
	Inactive:  00  03  12

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  9			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  AKAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

971117:	Commenced 48 months of active duty under the TAR program.

981014:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation on 980824.
	Award:  Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to next inferior paygrade (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

981014:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order or regulation in your failure to report a crime to the appropriate military authorities on 980824 onboard NAS Atlanta), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

990722:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specs), failure to report to appointed place of duty on 990528 and 990709.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month(suspended for 6 months),extra duty for 45 days, reduction to next inferior paygrade.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990824:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

990824:  	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 submit statements and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. 

990824:	Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Atlanta authorized discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990827 general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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.  A discharge of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on another occasion.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes why the applicant was discharged.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity and youth was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. 
The Board found no documentation that the applicant was treated unfairly because of his roommate or that his physical condition impaired his ability to serve.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

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 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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