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

 ex-ENS, USN
Docket No. ND02-01285

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020911, 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 030722.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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: SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 18 months of service with no other adverse action.

2.  My discharge was not forced or suggested, instead my commanding officer at the time believed that I would make a good Naval officer  - Letter of Reprimand.

3.  My discharge request was based on my desire to move closer to my family, not on the one isolated incident.

4.  My discharge means I can never again join a branch of the Armed Forces.

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR		971006 - 980109	To commenced OCS trng
	Active:   USNR (Trng)	980110 - 980423	To accept commission

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  980424	Date of Discharge:  990831

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  23			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  16	

Highest Grade:  ENS

Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages:  All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance, as administratively corrected by this Board):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  SECNAVINST 1920.6A

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

990217:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121:  Larceny and wrongful appropriation – did, on board Randolph Air Force Base, Tx, did at Building #1073 Army and Air Force Exchange Service on or about 12 Jan 99, steal Aiwa Cross Training Sport AM/FM Stereo Headband Radio/Headphone, of a value of $27.95, the property of Army and Navy Exchange Service.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemen – on or about 12 Jan 1999, wrongfully and knowingly steal, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service compromising the officer’s character and disgracing the armed forces.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements – on or about 2 Feb 99, with intent to deceive, make to 12th Flying Training Wing Office of Special Investigations an official statement, to wit: she did not intentionally steal a Aiwa Cross Training Sport AM/FM Stereo headband Radio/Headphone, which statement was totally false and was then known by the said Office of Special Investigations to be so false.
	Award:  Letter of Reprimand.  Not appealed.

990217:	Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to the Applicant.

990217:	Applicant’s statement in service record.

990304:	Report of Applicant’s NJP to CHNAVPERS, with a recommendation of retention on active duty only if the Fleet Support community or any one of the other restricted line communities are willing to give her a second chance.

990702:	CHNAVPERS advises the Secretary of the Navy that Applicant’s request for redesignation will not be staffed by the CNPC since she has adjudicated misconduct in her official record.  Additionally, upon initiation of administrative separation processing, Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for a General discharge in lieu of further administrative separation processing.  CHNAVPERS recommends Applicant’s separation from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense. 

990728:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved discharge action.

990831:	Applicant discharged due to misconduct.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990831 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.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of an officer.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for the commission of a serious offense.  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.

Issues 2 and 3.  The record states that the Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for a General discharge in lieu of further administrative separation processing.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  The Board found no reason to believe that her separation was not forced or that her administrative separation proceedings were based on her desire to move closer to her family.  Relief denied.

Issue 4.   Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of service in question.  No such error or inequity occurred during the Applicant’s service.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to permit future service in the armed forces, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief denied.

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.  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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

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