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

 ex-EMFR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00760

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020506, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Detroit, MI.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC Area.  The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030131.  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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  To whom it may concern:

I (W_ T. H_) have accomplished great things sense may departure of the U.S. Navy.  I've acquired a family and a college education of 3 years completed.  Raising a family and attending school has brought me great joy.  Yet, financial situations have made it difficult to finish college.  I decided to further my education at ITT Technical Institute.  11 years ago when I was in the Navy, I was very immature and stupid not realizing that my ignorance prevented me from establishing what could have been a great carrier.  I can honestly say I wish I could turn back the hands of time.  With the passing of the years maturity took a positive toll on my life.  Maturity is a thing of greatness in which I do understand now.  I have worked long hours on jobs not to my liking, this I also blame on my ignorance.  If I had not been ignorant in the service I would have a job to my liking.  I do apologize for being that way, but everyone is capable of change.  I only ask that I be given a chance by this board to receive an upgrade which would give me the chance to become a better man than I am today.

Documentation

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

Reference Letter from Applicant’s father, Associate Elder New Jerusalem Temple of the Apostle Faith, dated April 13, 2002
Letter of Recommendation from V_ Y. M_, Applicant’s fiancé, (2 pages), dated April 19, 2002
Copy of DD Form 214
Character Reference Letter from Detroit City Councilwoman, A_ T. T_, dated June 7, 2002
Acceptance Letter from ITT Technical Institute, dated April 11, 2002
ITT Technical Institute Student Schedule, June 17, 2002-September 6, 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900723 - 900828	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900829		Date of Discharge:  920619

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  29

Highest Rate:  EMFR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

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:

910612:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: 910512, failed to go at the time prescribed to place of duty, duty section muster, BEQ 333, violation of UCMJ Article 92: (3 Specifications) failed to obey lawful order (1) 910512 consumed alcohol in duty status, (2) 910512, consumed alcohol under age 21, (3) 910603, possessed alcohol under the age 21.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $422.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to NTC for 30 days, extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910612:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, to wit: Duty section personnel muster, at BEQ 333 on several occasions.  By wrongfully wearing civilian clothing without proper authorization, by wrongfully consuming an alcoholic beverage under the age of 21 years), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

910911:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violation of lawful general regulation, (U.S. Navy Regulations (1990) Article 1159) possession of firearm, to wit: 12 gauge shotgun, on or about 910903, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Obstructing justice on or about 910907.
	Award:  Correctional Custody Unit for 29 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920130:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), fail to go to appointed place of duty on or about 0600, 920116 and 1300, 911213.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920207:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of lawful general regulation, to wit: Navy Regulations, Article 1159, possess a 12 gauge shotgun on board a military installation on or about 910903, by obstructing justice on or about 910907; failure to obey lawful orders by consuming alcohol while in a duty status, by consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 and by possessing alcohol while under the age of 21.

920311:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

920312:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Going from appointed place of duty without authority, to wit: Duty day on or about 920306.
	Award:  Bread and Water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920325:	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 other than honorable conditions.

920430:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Leave his post as B-North Turnstile Gate Watch before being properly relieved on 920407.
	Award:  Bread and Water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920511:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [Concur in the administrative board’s findings and their recommendation that EMFR H_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge.] 

920528:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 920619 under other than honorable conditions 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:  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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice is evident in the Applicant’s service record.  In determining whether a case merits change based on post service conduct, the NDRB considers length of time since discharge, the Applicant’s record of community service, employment, conduct, educational achievements, and family relationships.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  At this time the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to support an upgrade based upon post-service accomplishments.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, 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