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

 ex-JOSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00486

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020314, 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 021206.  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.  I am requesting that my discharge from the U.S. Navy be upgraded to an Honorable.  I will briefly explain that during my last year in the military, I had gotten into some situations which, although somewhat minor, subjected me to reprimand by the captain.  My direct supervisor did have a prejudice against me from as early as my first encounter with her aboard the USS ACADIA.  The only actual proof I could present would be the copy of my certificate of release or discharge.  When I decided to get out a few months early I was told I would have separation pay of close to $5000.00 and my certificate stated an Honorable Discharge.  I took my last month leave without pay since the ship was going out to sea again and I was a single mother.  Then, I received my actual discharge papers, that stated my discharge to be General and I received no monies.  Both of these documents were signed by the said supervisor who also happened to be the personnel officer.  Until now, I didn't think I could do anything, but other veterans have informed me of this document to be sent.  I regret not being able to have enlisted again.  However I have overcome some of that set back to pursue a new career as a nurse.  Please consider this request and upgrade my discharge.  Thank you in advance.

Documentation

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

Statement from Applicant
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of travel certificate dated August 21, 1993
Copy of good conduct award
Copy of letter of commendation

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	851003 - 860218	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860219		Date of Discharge:  930908

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    07  06  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (47 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  64

Highest Rate:  JOSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.71 (9)	Behavior:  3.64 (9)		OTA:  3.68

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NER, MUC (1 Star), SASM, GCM, SSDR, OSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

900219:	Applicant extended enlistment for 12 months.

901108:	Applicant extended enlistment for 10 months.

911122:	Applicant extended enlistment for 25 months.

930113:	Applicant issued administrative remarks warning to inform her that she has thirty days from this date to comply with OPNAVINST 1740.4 and make adequate child care arrangements for her dependent daughter.  Failure to comply will result in disciplinary action and an administrative separation.

930315:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency [(A pattern of failure to pay just debts (returned checks)], notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

930318:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1245 to 1330, 8 Mar 93, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violation of a general regulation on 8 Mar 93, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully make an official pass on 8 Mar 93.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to JOSA.  Reduction suspended for 90 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930725:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 12 Jul 93.
	Award: Forfeiture of $50 per month for 1 month, reduction to JOSA.  Reduction suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930812:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government as evidenced by the failure to comply with OPNAVINST 1740.4, to wit: to provide adequate child care arrangements for her dependent child at all times to ensure her worldwide availability to perform a full range of her military duties and assignments, including deployments.

930812:	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

930820:	Commanding Officer, USS ACADIA (AD 42) recommended an honorable discharge  by reason of convenience of the government due to parenthood and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  My intentions are to process JOSN (Applicant) for parenthood vice misconduct for commission of serious offense.  JOSN (Applicant) can no longer meet military requirements concerning her obligation to deploy or her availability for worldwide assignment.  She has made every effort to comply and we have assisted her by referring her to family services and counseling.  Her situation becomes unworkable when the ship is underway for any extended length of time.  Finding adequate care that is reasonably priced for her child is a serious problem.  Although she qualifies for an OTH, I have no intention of processing her under this article.  JOSN (Applicant) has been a hard worker.  She made an error in judgment and appropriate action was taken.  I strongly recommend she be given an honorable discharge from the naval service.

930902:	USS ACADIA (AD 420 received approval for early separation of Applicant re: Reduction in Force. MILPERSMAN 3620100, KCC/MCC as appropriate.

930903:	BUPERS 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 930908 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).

Issue 1.  The Board found no indication of prejudice against the Applicant.  In fact, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer recommended that she receive an honorable discharge, but the separation authority properly and equitably awarded a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on another occasion.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity 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 she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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