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

 ex-MSSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00859

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010615, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 020110.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I (P___ H__ G__) would like to request an upgrade on my current discharge.  Due to the circumstances you have all the information on the discharge.  I need my benefits due to being injured on active duty and also was framed for my beliefs in telling the truth about illegal allegations that were visualized.  I need to be compensated for my injuries pain and suffering.  Understanding the lies that were told on me needs to be indeed rectified to the maximum extent of the federal law.  Bigotry is still at large in the Branches of Military, Rape incest murder are still valid and current in the Navy.  Perjury is punishable by law to my understanding and still nothing is being done.  I served this country now it is time for this country to serve me.  I've been trying to fight for my rights for almost 11 years, now it is time for problems to be solved.  Hopefully you will understand my situation if not the Pentagon in Washington D.C. will be notified.

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:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880429 - 880828	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880829		Date of Discharge:  900119

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  33

Highest Rate:  MSSR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  NOB		OTA:  NOB

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 – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

891117:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Fail to go to appointed place of duty 0430, 890901, Spec 2: Go from appointed place of duty 0800, 890901.  Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Disobeying order of superior petty officer to wipe down equipment in galley after the system was washed down on 890821, Spec 2: Disobeying order of superior petty officer to take out the trash on 890831.  Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: Making a false statement to military police by stating he has lost his military I.D. Card on 890911.  Charge IV: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on 890926.  Charge V: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Impersonating a petty officer 890911.
	Finding:  to Charge I and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, guilty.  To Charge II and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, guilty.  To Charge III and the specification thereunder, guilty.  To Charge IV and the specification thereunder, guilty.  To Charge V and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 30 days, forfeiture of $430.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-1.
	CA action 891025:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.
	
891213:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

891220:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

891226:	Applicant waived rights to Administrative Discharge Board.

900103:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

900106:	CNMPC 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 900119 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).

The applicant requested a change in discharge for veteran’s benefits.  The NDRB is authorized to change the character and reason for discharge if there is an inequity or impropriety.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the discharge.  The NDRB will not change a discharge for veteran’s benefits.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s issue contends that a bigotry and perjury were factors in his discharge.  The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to support his issue of impropriety and inequity.  Relief is denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his positive community service, employment history, and clean police record.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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