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

 ex-MSSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00052

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011004, 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 020815.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I would like to have my discharge upgraded as well as my RE Code, I believe that I have grown in the time I have been out of the service.  I would like the opportunity to look back with a bit of pride.  I may never go back, but I want a bit of pride to go back with the memories.  Sincerely

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940324 - 940403	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940404		Date of Discharge:  960805

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  37

Highest Rate:  MSSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (1)	Behavior:  3.80 (1)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  JMU, HSM, CGSOSR, NDSM, OSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950609:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (8 specs):  (1-7) Failing to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully using government telephone services for other than official government business or purposes, (8) Dereliction of duty in that she willfully failed to remain at the front desk of BOQ, as it was her duty to do and wrongfully entered another office and used government telephone services for other than official government business or purposes.
	Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to MSSR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950609:	Retention Warning from U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:  Advised of deficiency (Seven specifications of fail to obey a lawful order by making unauthorized phone calls on government phones and one specification of dereliction of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

950728:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful order by wrongfully fraternizing with a Cuban migrant, to wit: accepting $20.00 to purchase some film from the Navy Exchange on 12Jun95.
	Award: Forfeiture of $1000 per month for 10 months, extra duty for 1400 days, oral reprimand, reduction to MSSR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950728:	Retention Warning from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:  Advised of deficiency (Disobey a lawful order by wrongfully fraternizing with a Cuban migrant.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

960530:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  Falsely pretend to GTS by using other persons pin numbers between Mar96 and 11Apr96, to wit: telephone services, a value of about $679.90.
	Award: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960604:	U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion FORTY notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ, in current enlistment.

960604:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

960624:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
 
960725:	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 960805 under other than 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).

The Board found the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  While she may feel her immaturity was a factor that contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated she was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief on this basis is denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief, is therefore, denied.

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge.  The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is 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