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

 ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND02-01011

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020708, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated the Disabled American Veterans as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030331.  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 four to one that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I am writing to you to ask for a Discharge Upgrade.  I was discharged from the U.S. Navy on 31 January 1999.  I received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. I was discharged for completion of required active service and a General Discharge was given for an unacceptable act I regretfully so committed.  I used the government telephone to make calls to my ex-husband (we were divorced 06 Nov 2000).  I went to Mast and was reduced in rank, given extra duty and restriction.  I was so embarrassed and humiliated I completed my obligated service and went home.
It has been 2 years since I have been discharged.  I am currently a Nursing Student at Arkansas State University and a mother of beautiful daughter.  The marriage I was trying to save; I lost and I am well on my way to a better life for myself and my daughter.  I am terribly remorseful for the mistake I made and I never denied…I made mistake.  I accepted responsibility and paid the price.  However, life is moving on, please forgive me and upgrade my discharge.  Please note in the enclosures, that I have 2 Letter's of Commendation and only one is documented on my DD214, also I received 2 good conduct medals.  The first one is not documented on my DD214.  Please review my records and made notes of these changes. 

Respectfully,

__________________________________________________________________

Documentation

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

2 Copies of DD Form 214
DAV's ltr of March 20, 2003
DAV's ltr of August 6, 2002
Arkansas State University Unofficial Undergraduate Record
Employment Screening Services, with Criminal History Report (11 pages)
Letter of Commendation Citation (Nov97 to Nov 98)
Letter of Commendation Citation (Apr 96 to Dec 96)
Character Reference ltr, dtd Jul 9, 2002, from C_ P. H_, RN, MSN, OCN, Assistant Professor of Nursing (unsigned)
Character Reference ltr, undtd, from P_ W_, MSN, Assistant Professor of Nursing (unsigned) (duplicates)
Arkansas State University Admission ltr, dtd Jun 22, 2001, for Fall 2001
Evaluation & Performance Reports (6)
Letter of Congratulation, dtd Aug 6, 1998, from RADM B.B. P_, USN, in earning Bachelor of Science degree
Letter of Appreciation Citation, dtd Jan 15, 1997
Letter of Commendation Citation (Nov 97 to Nov 97)
Letter of Appreciation, dtd Mar 27, 1997
Letter of Appreciation Citation, dtd May 7, 1997
Letter of Appreciation Citation, dtd Apr 1, 1997
Letter of Commendation, (Apr 96 to Dec 96)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	920214 - 930131	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930201		Date of Discharge:  990131

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    06  00  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 (12 & 12 month extensions)

Education Level:  13			AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.0 (5)	Behavior:  4.0 (5)		OTA:  3.45 (5.0 eval)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM, Flag LoC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970201:	Extended enlistment for 12 months.

980201:	Extended enlistment for 12 months.

981211:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Violation of a lawful general regulation; violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement; violation of UCMJ Article 134: False pretenses, obtaining services under.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $615 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990131:	Applicant discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of completion of required active service. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990131 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of completion of required active service (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:  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. A characterization of service of general (under honorable) conditions is warranted when 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 record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP).  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, fell short of that required for a honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.  However, the NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214 and corrected it to reflect the Applicant’s two letters of commendation but not the second good conduct medal.  Only Sailors who serve three consecutive years without a NJP receive a good conduct medal.  The Applicant was awarded NJP prior to completion of the second three-year period.  

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.  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 be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.   At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-104 (previously 3620150), Separation by Reason of Expiration of Active Obligated Service (EAOS).

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