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

 ex-ENS, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00080

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 011016, requested the characterization of service on her discharge be upgraded to honorable and her promotion to LTJG be granted now.  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 19 June 2002.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Commission of a serious offense, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during my exemplary service at Naval Hospital Portsmouth and during my Gulf War Service.

2.  My discharge was improper because it was based on matters occurring outside of my chain of command resulting in no negative effects to operations of either command.

3.  At the time of my discharge, I had served my time and all other requirements for LTJG and was beig paid at the 02 scale, but my promotion to LTJG was held due to administrative proceedings.

4.  Since my discharge, I have furthered myself professionally and have shown myself to be the type of individual that the Navy would be proud of.

Documentation

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

Applicant's ltr to the Board undtd 
Copy of DD Form 214
Norfolk State University Nursing clinical Instructor Temporary employment agreement
Certified Emergency Nurse Official certificate
Air Ambulance Nurse Certificate of Training
Sigma Theta Tau Honor Society Member Official certificate
Master of Science in Nursing, Old Dominion Univ., Final grade report
Certified Family Nurse Practitioner Official certificate
Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners Membership card
Commonwealth of Virginia Licensed Nurse Practitioner Official Certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  890614	Date of Discharge:  911115

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  04
	Inactive:  00  01  26

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  16

Highest Grade:  ENS

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MUC, SWASM(2 Bronze Stars), SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Commission of a serious offense, authority:  SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910618:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  fraternization, violation of UCMJ Article 133: conduct unbecoming an officer, to wit:  did, in the vicinity of the Hampton Roads Area, from on or about 25 Mar 91, to on or about 28 Apr 91, wrongfully involve herself in a personal relationship with Builder First Class C_ H. B_, USN, a married man not her husband, said conduct being to the disgrace of the armed forces.
	Award:  Letter of Reprimand.  
	910619:  Appealed NJP.

910625:	Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued.

910719:	Applicant's NJP appealed denied.

910814:	CO, NAVHOSP Portsmouth, reported Applicant's NJP to BUPERS.

910719:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91 and the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.

910722:	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right to tender a resignation in lieu of separation processing.

910820:	Applicant submitted resignation request.

910906:	Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "Ensign (Applicant)'s total disregard of the Navy's policy against fraternization has resulted in not only adverse disciplinary action, but has severely impacted her Navy career.  Although, I believe she is a good nurse, the Navy has rules and regulations which must be followed and when she decided to fraternize with an enlisted man, she placed herself outside of these important rules and regulations.  Ensign (Applicant) submitted her request for resignation and asked for a general discharge under honorable conditions.  I strongly recommend that her request for resignation be granted immediately so that she can resume her professional career outside of the military."

910920:	Applicant's letter of resignation forwarded to BUPERS.

911011:	BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy Applicant's letter of resignation be accepted and that Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense.

911021:	ASN (M&RA) approved Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of serious offense.
PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 911115 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct - commission of 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.  The Applicant asserts her discharge was inequitable because her misconduct was based on an isolated incident during her exemplary service at Naval Hospital Portsmouth and during her Gulf War Service.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge 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 fraternized with an enlisted service member in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  This offense formed the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful disobedience of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and falls short of the behavior expected of a naval officer.  Relief is not warranted on this basis.

Issue 2.  The Applicant asserts her discharge was improper because it was based on matters occurring outside of her chain of command and did not impact on the operations of the command.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to service members on and off duty.  The fact that her illicit relationship existed only outside of the work place does not negate the violation.  There is no merit in this assertion and relief is not warranted on this basis.

Issue 3.  The Applicant's third issue is a promotion issue.  The NDRB has no authority to change a promotion level or to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  This issue can be addressed to the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).  Relief, on this basis is therefore, denied. 

Issue 4.  The Applicant states that since her discharge, she has furthered herself professionally and has proven herself to be the type of individual that the Navy would be proud of.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The Applicant must be aware that 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 as a civilian subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to exist during the period of service 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.  Relief on this basis is not warranted.  

The Applicant is reminded that she 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 highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A of 21 November 1983 (Administrative separation of Officers), establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

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