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

 ex-SA, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00336

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020129, 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 021022.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.

2.  I was having personal problems with my ex-fiancé which effected my performance in the Navy.

3.  I am now married, work full-time, and am a responsible father.

Documentation

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

Two page excerpt from Applicant’s Administrative Discharge Board
DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant’s wife dated 24 Nov 01
Letter from Applicant dated 4 Oct 01
Letter from Applicant dated 24 Nov 01

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	None
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  931015		Date of Discharge:  941007

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  10
	Inactive:  00  00  16

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  27

*No Marks Available for review

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

931101:	Ordered to active duty for 3 years under the Seaman Apprenticeship program.

940526:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency. (CO's NJP conducted onboard USS FLINT (AE-32) located at FICS, Oakland, California on 940526 for the following infraction(s): Violation of UCMJ, Articles 86: Unauthorized Absence, and 87: Missing Movement.  Continued poor reliability and professional performance will not be tolerated.)  Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
940526:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 940419 to 940515 (27 days/S), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement on 940426.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940622:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, missed 2 restricted musters, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation, wrongfully sleeping in a rack, not his own, fully clothed with shoes on during the Executive Officer Messing and Berthing Inspection.
	Award:  Three days Bread and Water, forfeiture of $416.00 pay per month for 2 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940706:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940706:	Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

940912:	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).

940914:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  

940929:	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 941027 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to the 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).

Issues 1 and 2.  The Board found that the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity, youth and personal problems were factors 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.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  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.

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

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  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 – 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 "afls14.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