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

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01010

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010803, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020419.  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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I C_ L. H_, am writing the Review Discharge Board for a recharacterzation of my discharge.  I was administratively discharged from active duty with other than honorable discharge.  I entered the U.S. Navy on 10/11/91 as an E-2 and acquired 11 months and 24 days of sea service.  Then on 10/22/93 was discharged, and up to that point my evaluations were above average.   My separation was due to missing ships movement.  After going to the Captain's Mast, I was given a choice.  Either be reduced to an E-1 or be discharged.  Being 23 at this time, I had no idea that after serving my country for two years, I would have nothing to show for it seven years later.  I was young, irresponsible, and not able to make healthy choices.  I chose to leave.  I didn't realize this would affect me later in life.  It was not explained to me that if I chose to be discharged I would not be able to acquire a government job.  It was only explained that I would lose my GI Bill.
 I am asking the Review Board with all due respect to review my discharge for a possible upgrade.  Today, being a responsible citizen, I realize the part I played in the characterization of my discharge.  I am now attending college and recently made the Deans List.  I will finish my associate degree in June.  I am employed as a refrigeration technician at Coburg Dairy in North Charleston, South Carolina and have been for the past three years.  Respectfully C_ L. H_ (Applicant)

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Trident Technical College ltr (Part-Time Students' Dean's List) of Feb 27, 2001
Letter of Employment, Coburg Diary, dtd Mar 5, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911011 - 920525	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920525		Date of Discharge:  931022

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  28 (Excludes lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  13+		AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)		OTA:  1.0

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  10 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930323:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness to the USS ORION (AS18) in the amount of $600 - failed to maintain sufficient funds to cover 3 personal checks on NFCU account totaling $600 during a port visit in La Madallena, Italy), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

930615:	Unauthorized absence from USS WOODROW WILSON (SSN624) at Charleston, SC.

930615:	Missing ship's movement.

930617:	Surrendered to military authorities onboard USS WOODROW WILSON (SSN624) at 0800.

930706:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  absence without leave; violation of UCMJ Article 87: missing ship's movement; violation of UCMJ Article 92: failure to obey order/regulation.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 1 month, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

930827:	Unauthorized absence from 1020 this date.  Intentions unknown.

930829:	Missed movement.  Intentions unknown.

930903:	Surrendered to military authorities on board USS WOODROW WILSON (SSN624) at 1145 this date.

930914:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 87: missing ship's movement; violation of UCMJ Article 92: failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award:  Restriction for 24 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930914:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your violations of Article 86 (Absence without leave) (2 specifications), Article 87 (Missing Ship's Movement through design) (2 specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful Order) (2 specifications).

930914:	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 obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

931004:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "FR(SU) H_'s (Applicant) performance since reporting on board has been substandard and inconsistent with Navy directives. He is an administrative burden to this command and has no further potential for further Naval service.

931015:	BUPERS 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 931022 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).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions 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 two occasions and an adverse counseling entry 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.   The Board found the applicant was properly advised of his rights concerning his involuntary separation and certified his understanding of those rights on 930914. An upgrade would be inappropriate.  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 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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