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

 ex-YNSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00974

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010725, 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 020221.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.
2.  My record of promotion showed I was generally a good service member.
3.  I received awards and decorations.
4.  I have been a good citizen since discharge. 

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911015 - 920401	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920402		Date of Discharge:  950831

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  55

Highest Rate:  YNSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.16 (5)	Behavior:  3.48 (5)		OTA:  3.44

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, NMCOSR

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 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920403:	You are being retained in the Naval service, despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre service civil involvement: 8808 Speeding ticket, Waxahate, TX, Paid $87.50 fine; 9106 Illegal passing/wreck, Ennis, TX, Paid $110.00 fine.

941004:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failed to muster for command directed physical conditioning program.
Award:  Forfeiture of $240.00 per month for 1 month, and reprimand in writing.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950320:	Retention Warning from Mobile Mine Assembly Group Unit Fifteen:  Advised of deficiency (Habitual Tardiness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

950323:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for approximately 10 minutes.
	Award:  Adjudication not legible).  No indication of appeal in the record.

950324:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 : (2 Specifications), failure to obey order or regulation.
	Award:  Reduction to E-2 and Defrocked as YN3).  No indication of appeal in the record.

950406:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
	Award:  Reduction to next inferior pay grade (E-1), (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

950524:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for approximately 13 minutes.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $211.00 per pay month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950705:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Fail to go to appointed place of duty.
	Award:  Restriction to MOMAG Unit Fifteen for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950707:	Mobile Mine Assembly Group Unit Fifteen notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your service record.

950707:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

950710:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

950811:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 950831 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 states:  “My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.”  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  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 is denied.

Issue 2 states:  “My record of promotion showed I was generally a good service member.”  While the applicant feels his record of promotion shows he was generally a good service member, the Board found the applicant’s documented misconduct demonstrates his unsuitability for military service.  The Board found the General discharge equitably assigned.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 3 states:  “I received awards and decorations.”  The Board considered the applicant’s service record including service awards and found nothing that demonstrates that the General discharge was inequitably assigned.  Relief is not warranted.

Issue 4 states:  “I have been a good citizen since discharge.”  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 clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A 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