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

 ex-ETSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00458

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020304, 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 021104.  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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My first point is to explain my purpose for requesting that my discharge be upgraded.  First, I would like to re-enlist in the U.S. Navy Reserve and second, I would like to receive my VA benefits.

2.  My second point is to apologize for the trouble I caused when I was active duty.  I was young, undisciplined and had a terrible attitude.  I wish I could go back and change all of that, but I can't.  I did enjoy my time in the U.S. Navy and I thank the U.S. Navy for the education, experience, and discipline I did receive.

3.  Lastly, at my Captain's Mast, my Commanding Officer explained that he was giving me a "General-Under Honorable Conditions" Discharge and that I would retain my VA benefits.  He told me that it was NOT his intention to disqualify me from receiving the VA benefits.

Thank you for your time and attention.  God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910621 - 920105	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920106		Date of Discharge:  961008

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  09  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  ET3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (4)	Behavior:  3.55 (4)		OTA:  3.65
Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  3.00 (1)		OTA:  3.00 (5.0 Evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

951214:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 81: Conspiracy; violation of UCMJ, Article 132: Fraud against the United States; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: False Swearing.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $545.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960117:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency [CO's NJP of 951214: Violation of the UCMJ Article 81 (Conspiracy), Article 132 (Frauds against the United States) and Article 134 (False Swearing)], notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

960927:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches or gestures; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful order; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully alter vehicle decal.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $490.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961002:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

961002:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

961009:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961008 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Issues 1 and 3.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  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.

Issue 2.  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his youth and attitude 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.

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.

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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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 “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