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

   ex-SMSN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00001

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20020925, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Millen, GA.  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, D.C. 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 20030812.  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: 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.  I D_ after giving the USN 16 1/2 yrs of my life was wrongfully giving a OTH base on charges that is not base on my service record.

2.  I was incapable at the time to denseness myself.  Due to metal problems & dealing with wife death and almost losing my life in a fire.  Also after court martial finding C.O. was not please with out come.

3.  4 Good Conduct Metals in 16 yrs.  On every four yrs.

4.  All I want is my benefits due to me.  Also expense my service just to make charges stick.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	750424 - 750707	COG
	Active:   USN			750708 - 790212	HON
	Active:   USN			790213 - 831010	HON
	
Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  831011		Date of Discharge:  910428

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    07  05  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  6 (17 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  SM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:   2.96 (11)	Behavior:  2.96 (11)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, BATTLE"E", GCM (2), LOA, LOC 

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:

831011:	Reenlisted at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, WA for 6 years.

881130:	Counseled concerning substandard military appearance, erratic job performance, and personal behavior.

881130:	Recommendation for advancement in rate of 861130 withdrawn.

891011:	Extended enlistment for 17 months.

900622:	Special Court-Martial. 
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 108, Specifications: On or about 900307, without authority, willfully suffer government quarters to be damaged by causing a gas stove to explode after the said A_ disconnected the gas line, the amount of damage being in the sum of about $14,781.00.  Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: On or about 900307, wrongfully use cocaine, barbiturates, and morphine.  Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: On or about 900307, intentionally injure himself by disconnecting the gas line to his stove in government housing, thereby causing a gas explosion in government quarters.
	Findings:  to Charge I and specifications thereunder, guilty, excepting the word, "willfully,” and substituting therefore the word, "negligently."  Of the excepted word, NOT GUILTY.  Of the substituted word, guilty.  To Charge II and specification thereunder, not guilty.  To Charge III and the specification thereunder, not guilty. 
	Sentence:  To be reprimanded.
	CA 900827:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.
	
900827:	Applicant received Punitive Letter of Reprimand and did not submit a statement.
  
901226:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, to wit: negligently suffering government quarters to be damaged in the amount of $14,781.00.

910107:	CNMPC's Letter of Substandard Service.

910215:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

910215:	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.

910225:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

910308:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

910310:	Held beyond normal date of expiration of enlistment in order to receive medical treatment IAW MILPERSMAN 1050155.

910310:	Applicant consented to be retained in the Naval Service beyond normal date of expiration of enlistment in order to receive medical treatment.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19910428 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).

Issues 1 and 3.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by his special court-martial on one occasion and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  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 would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity regarding the conduct of the Applicant’s special court-martial.  While he may feel that his personal problems at the time were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 4.  The Applicant consented to extending his enlistment in order to receive medical benefits.  The Board found no indication that his enlistment was extended in order to complete his administrative separation under other than honorable conditions.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country during the period of service under review.  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 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, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  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.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, 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