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

 ex-FA, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00015

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government.  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 020604.  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 (verbatim)

1.  I received a misconduct on my DD 214 because of my arrest in Sept 97.  I was arrested for having a firearm in my vehicle from civilian police officers.  I was then wrongfully accused and had charges dropped, to not guilty months later cause in fact the fire arm does belong to me and is registered to me.  Therefore I do not have a criminal record and I did however finish my enlistment.  I was given General (under Honorable conditions) because my command was under the impression that my charges was a felony and a felony is a sign of misconduct but I have no felonies or misdemeanors.  My case was ended as me being not guilty.

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant
Copy of DD Form 214
Police record check dated August 29, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940922 - 950228	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950301		Date of Discharge:  980311

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  11 GED		AFQT:  43

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (5)	Behavior:  2.80 (5)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

970421:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980311:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under 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 980311 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).

The applicant’s issue states that a civil fire arms possession charge formed the basis for his separation.  However, the applicant’s service record shows the applicant was found guilty at NJP of violation of UCMJ Article 121 (Larceny).  The Board noted the discharge package is missing, and absent additional information the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of government affairs.  The applicant provided no documentation that demonstrates that the discharge was improper or inequitable.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant requested that the reason for his discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.”  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The applicant’s service was marred by his misconduct.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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, and employment history.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is 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 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, 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