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

 ex-HA, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00263

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Los Angeles, CA.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  Scheduling Notice addressed to the applicant was returned as undeliverable.  Therefore a documentary discharge review was conducted.

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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I was a young man who did not realize what was happening.  I did nothing wrong.  There was no evidence against me and I was convicted of a idiotic charge attempted use of speed.  How can you be convicted of attempting to do something?  There were never any positive drug tests or any drugs ever presented!!!

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: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  841214		Date of Discharge:  870331

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  61

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  3.00 (2)		OTA:  3.10

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

841214:	Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

860131:	Recommendation and nomination for advancement in rate withdrawn.  Reason: While working in the Security Division, HN (applicant) experienced some problems dealing with the general public.  There were complaints of his treatment of personnel attempting to come aboard the Naval Hospital.  He was belligerent and disrespectful towards a staff member and spouse attempting to come on the base.  On 18Nov85, he was one hour late for work and was formally counseled and awarded ten hours of extra military instruction and placed in dungaree status doing housekeeping duties.  HN (applicant) currently recommended for retention in the United States Navy.

860924:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A:
	Specification 1: Wrongfully use methamphetamine on 31May86.  
	Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1 thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: CHL for 30 days, forfeiture of $240 per month for 2 months, reduction to HA.
	CA 861030:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

861030:	Applicant arrested by SDPD and charged with burglary, injury to spouse, child abuse, vandalism, and injury to telephone lines.  Charges not resolved this date.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 17Feb87.]

861212:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by service record entries.

861212:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.  [Date estimated.]

870108:	Report and Disposition of Offense(s): Charge I: Violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Absent from appointed place of duty 0700 - 1100, 29Dec86, (2) Absent from appointed place of duty on 0700 - 0716, 7Jan87.  Applicant refused to sign.

870109:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

870217:	Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870311:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 870331 under honorable conditions (general) 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:  The Board found the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his youth was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  His allegation, that the proceeding of the Special Court Martial, for his wrongful use of methamphetamines was based upon an “idiotic charge” is without merit.  There is no evidence in the official record, nor did the Applicant provide any certifiable documentation that there was any impropriety during his enlistment.  Furthermore, the record notes that civilian authorities arrested the Applicant for a serious offense(s).  A civilian or military conviction is not required for a service member to be discharged under the provisions of commission of a serious offense.  Relief not warranted.

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.  Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 7/86, effective 
15 Dec 86 until 14 Jun 87), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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