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

 ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00053

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011002, 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 020517.  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.  My discharge was inequitable because I believe that no consideration was given to my frantic state of mind at the time of the incident that caused my discharge.  During my 28 months of service I performed all my duties to the best of my ability as noted by my evaluation reports.  The incident that resulted in my discharge was due to an accumulation of stress caused by the harassment of my fellow submariners and my inability to avoid their taunts in the restricted confines of a submarine environment.  My superiors were aware of the harassment I received and never took the necessary steps to correct the situation.  This lack of concern for my well being eventually lead me to take the inappropriate action causing my discharge.

Documentation

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

Job reference dated September 20, 2001
Copy of police record check
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Applicant's microfiche service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950309 - 950913	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950914		Date of Discharge:  980116

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (3)	Behavior:  3.00 (3)		OTA:  2.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSBNDPI with 1 Patrol, NDSM, NEM, AFEM, SSDR

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:

980106:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specs): (1) False official statement on 16Dec97, to wit: I used marijuana in November 1996, (2) False official statement on 16Dec97, to wit: I am suicidal..
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to FA.  Restriction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980108:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980108:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980113:	Commanding officer directed discharge 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 980116 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 contends that his discharge was inequitable because no consideration was given to his frantic state of mind and harassment he received aboard his submarine.  The Board found the applicant was found guilty at NJP of a serious military offense, violation of UCMJ Article 107- False Official Statement.  The applicant offered no documentation to support his issue.  The NDRB in its assumption of regularity assumes that the discharge authority fully considered the applicant’s service at the time of discharge.  The Board also noted that the positive aspects of the applicant’s service were considered in that the discharge authority could have taken the applicant to Court Martial or processed him for an Other Than Honorable discharge.  Instead, the discharge authority characterized the applicant’s service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions).  The NDRB found the discharge proper and equitable.  Relief is denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization 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, employment history, educational pursuits and clean police record.  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