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

 ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00987

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010730, 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 listed 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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I did three years and 3 months in the U. S. Navy.  I had gotten in trouble a couple times but felt at the time my department did not like so when I ended going before the Captain it was put in my record.  Therefore because of my minor incidents I did not get to finish my last 8 months to get my honorable discharge, and received a general discharge under honorable conditions so that nullified my education assistance.
I also felt that my incidents shouldn't have never made it to Captains Mast and could of been dropped so that also made a tarnish in my record. I'm also now currently in the National Guard for the Army.  So I feel if gotten accepted then it shows that I wasn't that much of a burden to my country and to the Navy (Joined Washington Army National Guard Jan 30, 2001).  Applicant marked "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION."   None were found.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Statement from applicant, undated
Copy of memorandum dated June 7, 2001
Job reference dated April 6, 2001
Job reference dated October 12, 2001
Copy of Armed Forces of the United States identification card for the US Army Guard
Copy of unofficial student transcript
Letter from Gonzaga University dated July 2, 2001
Letter from Easton Washington University dated July 27, 2001
Copy of certificate for firefighter II training dated August 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970728 - 970820	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970821		Date of Discharge:  001120

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  03  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  33

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.67 (3)	Behavior:  1.67 (3)		OTA:  1.87

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFSM, AFEM (2), BEA, MUC, SSDR (2)

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:

981121:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
	Award: Forfeiture of $539.55 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990415:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Details not found in record, violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  Details not found in record.
	Award: Forfeiture of $539 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 21 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000723:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey or order.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $563 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to FA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001120:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

Discharge package is missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 001120 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.  The Board found that the applicant’s claim he was treated unfairly by his command cannot be substantiated sufficient to mitigate his misconduct.  The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the fact that the applicant received three Captain’s Masts. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant 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 three occasions.  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.  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.  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