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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00887

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010626, 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  In a contract I received at MEPS (Gunter AFB, Montgomery AL).  It stated that I was to receive an A School of either information’s Technician or Sonar Technician school after a period of 18 months in a non-designated rate (Deck dept.) aboard my first command - The USS Kearsarge.  After only a few months aboard my ship, I was informed by my chain of command that because of poor work evolutions, that I would not be eligible for my schooling.  To say the least, I was disappointed and rather than appeal through my C.O. I irresponsibly went UA several times, which I now regret.  As a young man with no college education and no means of which to pay for a 4 year degree.  It makes higher and/or better job opportunities difficult for  a man of limited education.  I am not making any excuses for myself.  I know what I did was wrong but now I respectfully request that my discharge be changed to honorable and my reentry code be upgraded or at least the latter.  So that I may be able to rejoin the service.  I ask this not for myself but for my wife and soon-to-be daughter.  They deserve better than what I can offer them here in the "civilian world".  If it seems that I am using my family as a vice, I apologize for it was not my intention.  I only want what is best interest.  Attached is a copy of discharge paper from the Navy to help clear things up.  Any help you may give will be greatly appreciated.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990827		Date of Discharge:  001109

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  02  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (2)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.69

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  41

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000509:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 9May00.

000602:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1435, 2Jun00 (14 days/apprehended).

000624:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0500, 24Jun00.

000627:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0500, 27Jun00 (3 days/ surrendered).

000703:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0500, 3Jul00.

000718:	Applicant missed ship's movement.

000727:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1855, 27Jul00 (24 days/ surrendered).

000810:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Unauthorized absence from unit, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement through neglect.
	Award: Forfeiture of $502.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000810:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Absent from unit (2 specs), miss ship's movement), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000830:	Psychiatric evaluation: Diagnostic Impression: Axis I: Occupational problems, marijuana abuse, alcohol dependence, with physiologic dependence, Axis II: Personality disorder NOS, with narcissistic, immature, and passive-aggressive traits (primary).

001013:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 12Sep00 to 29Sep00, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement through neglect on 18Sep00, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Breaking restriction.
	Award: Forfeiture of $502.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001016:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) due to convenience of the government - personality disorder and by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

001016:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

001114:	Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government - personality disorder and by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and 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 001109 general (under 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.  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

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 the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. The applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to contest the characterization of service at an administrative hearing while being processed for discharge in 2000.  Under Honorable Conditions (General) most clearly describes the applicant’s characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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.  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 28, effective 
30 Mar 00 until 29 Aug 00, 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