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

ex-DT3, USN
Docket No. ND02-01044

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020718, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030612.  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)/NON-RETENTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-104.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

Review Board,

I have been discharged on December 27, 2000.  Upon discharge I have been nothing less than a modeled citizen.  With the experience and discipline learned from serving ten (10) years in the U.S. Navy, I believe I could achieve any obstacle.  I have robbed myself of the opportunity to become a Naval Officer.  So, the issue I bring before you today is with my military and educational experience my discharge is hindering job opportunities.  I get as for as the interview process and when I explain my discharge I’m quickly turned away.

I ask in good faith for an upgrade from General under Honorable conditions to Honorable.  My service record should speak volumes concerning my Naval career.  I continue striving for improvement as demonstrated by completing a Masters of Science degree May 2002.  The Navy has been all I have ever known and now I must take a new journey.  I only request to be sent into battle with the proper gear, which, in this case it would be a change in discharge status.  I’m confident the Board will act in good faith and I trust each of you will do the right thing.  I thank you for your time and patience.

Sincerely,  (Signed by the Applicant)

Documentation

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

7 Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports
Certificate of Master of Science in Administration, Central Michigan University of   
     May, 2002
Certificate of Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology, Columbia College of May 13, 2000
Certificate of Associate of Arts Degree, Columbia College of Oct 4, 1997
Certificate of Apprenticeship, Dental Assistant, of 29 Jul 96
Certificate for Distinguished Medal Award for Junior Sailor of the Year 1996
Certificate for Navy Achievement Medal (31 Jan 96 to 30 Jun 96) dtd 23 Sep 96
Certificate for Navy Achievement Medal (Gold Star in lieu of Second Award) (Oct 95 – Sep 96) dtd 14 Mar 97
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 25 Sep 94
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 25 Sep 97
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 18 Jul 00
Letter of Appreciation, CO, Naval Dental Center, dtd 29 Jun 93
Letter of Commendation, Naval Training Center, Orlando (Nov 91 to Apr 94)
Letter of Citation for Meritorious Unit Commendation (1 May 96 to 1 May 98), signed by Commandant of the Marine Corps
Letter of Commendation (Jun 94 to Jun 97) from CG, 2D FSSG, MARFORLANT
Letter of Commendation from Naval Dental Center Southeast, Jacksonville, FL 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900622 - 900925	COG
	Active:   USN			900926 - 970331	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970401		Date of Discharge:  001227

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  08  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  25			Years Contracted:  3 (4 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  DT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.25 (4)	Behavior:  3.50 (4)		OTA:  3.39 (5.0 evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NAM (2), GCM (3), FMF Ribbon, NDSM, MUC, Navy Pistol Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/NON-RETENTION, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article MILPESMAN 1910-104.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970401:	Reenlisted for 3 years at 2D FSSG, MARFORLANT, Camp Lejuene, NC.

000401:	Extended for four months to have EAOS match PRD.  Established EAOS as 31 July 2000.

000522:	Charge Sheet:  
Charge I:  Violation UCMJ, Article 92:  Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, who knew of his duties at the Branch Dental Clinic, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL, on divers occasions from on or about March 98 to on or about May 1999, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to carry out the duties of a leading petty officer, as it was his duty to do by not submitting leave chits of personnel attached to the Branch Dental Clinic Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL;
Charge II:  Violation of UCMJ, 134:  Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, on or about 18 May 1999, wrongfully communicate to DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, a threat to injury DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, by flinching his body and drawing back his fist and saying “I’ll break your mother f—king neck.” or words to that effect.

000731:	Applicant retained beyond EAOS in a legal hold status while pending a special court-martial.

001209:	Special Court-Martial.	
Charge I:  Violation UCMJ, Article 92:  Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, who knew of his duties at the Branch Dental Clinic, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL, on divers occasions from on or about March 98 to on or about May 1999, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to carry out the duties of a leading petty officer, as it was his duty to do by not submitting leave chits of personnel attached to the Branch Dental Clinic Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL;
Charge II:  Violation of UCMJ, 134:  Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, on or about 18 May 1999, wrongfully communicate to DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, a threat to injury DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, by flinching his body and drawing back his fist and saying “I’ll break your mother f—king neck.” or words to that effect. 
	Findings:  to Charge I – guilty; to Charge II – not guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 21 days, reduction to E-4.

001221:	Applicant requested to reenlist for a term of two years; command disapproved request.

001221:	Applicant requested Captain’s Mast. However, on 001226, Applicant rescinded his request.

001226:	Letter to Applicant concerning an adverse performance evaluation report and provided his rights.

001227:	Applicant given opportunity to sign his eval report/counseling record (NAVPERS 1610/2) of 00MAR16 to 00DEC27, but refused to do so.  He was made aware of his rights.

001227:	Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) due to not meeting the reenlistment criteria and his enlistment, as extended, had expired.  Assigned separation code of “KGH” – Non-Retention On Active Duty.

010302:	Defense Counsel requested clemency for Applicant.  Applicant provided 
Unsworn Statement.

010419:	Review by Judge Advocate:  Approved sentence is legal.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 001227 under honorable conditions (general) for expiration of enlistment and not meeting reenlistment criteria (non-retention on active duty) (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.   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 a special court-martial.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his 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 his service to his country during his final enlistment.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged.  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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 27, effective 27 March 2000 until 7 May 2001, Article 1910-104 (previously 3620150), Separation by Reason of Expiration of Active Obligated Service (EAOS).

B.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Changed 29, effective 22 August 00, Article 1160-120, High Year Tenure.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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