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

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00034

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021002, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to COG.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030828.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

The circumstances surrounding my recruitment, testing, enlisting, attendance at boot camp and initial assignment all occurred during a time in my life that I was under a great deal of external stress.  When these external pressures were brought up with my chain of command, rather than being offered appropriate counseling, I was labeled a "whiner" or-a 'loser" and my potential was-stifled.

During fall of 1992, while I was going -through the process of joining the Navy, my parents were separated and contemplating divorce.  Then in December, I lost my stepfather, LCDR J_ E_ B_ USN, in a tragic F-16 accident (see attached document).  My scores on the ASVAB tests-, which I took the day I was notified of his status-, were, not surprisingly, well below average.  Rather than having the opportunity to strike for a technical rating, I was assigned to the USS AMERICA as a fireman.  This assignment was a quick-fill - the ship was scheduled to deploy within 14 days of my reporting aboard, so I was not afforded the time to get my wife and newborn son settled in Norfolk before sailing.  All this, combined with the standard "new guy" hazing and the theft (aboard ship) of my personal effects seriously affected my performance.  Rather than attempting to salvage an errant sailor, my superiors were merely looking for a way to get rid of me.  I received no meaningful counseling….just a quick trip to the Legal Office.

I grew up as a Navy "junior," considered myself more patriotic than most and seriously looked forward to making a career in the service of my country.  I did myself no favors with my actions during this period of my life; but now, as a manager in a high-tech industry, I honestly believe that my chain of command failed miserably during my early days in the Navy.

2.  I believe that my discharge, and its characterization, was based upon administrative expedience and my limited time aboard, rather than my potential for further service to the Navy.

In my case, the Navy took the easy way out.  Rather than investing a little time and effort in salvaging a Sailor, my leadership opted for the "short-timer" Administrative Discharge route.  I was naive and somewhat adrift, but I was salvageable - unfortunately I was not allowed the opportunity to steer a new course.

The "Convenience of the Government" discharge may reduce the Navy's lengthy administrative process - but in a headlong drive to simplify the procedure and rid themselves of incorrigible individuals, the Navy lost many merely misguided individuals that - with a modicum of support - could have contributed significantly to the mission.

I have clear intentions of reenlisting with the United States Navy but cannot do so with an "Other Than Honorable" Discharge and the characterization of "Misconduct".  Which is why I am now requesting this review.

I have been employed with the same company since earning my A.A.S. Degree in Advanced Electronics in July of 1999, have been promoted twice over the past four years and hold the current position of Service Manager.  In reenlisting I will not only be taking a severe cut in pay but also sacrificing many of my freedoms as a civilian.  This seems a small price to pay if given a second chance to serve my country…honorably.

I request that my discharge, and its characterization be reviewed and upgraded.

Documentation

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

Associate of Occupational Studies degree, dated July 16, 1999
Character reference, dated September 25, 2002 (2 copies)
Report of casualty, dated December 17, 1992
Applicant's DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930119 - 930208	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930209		Date of Discharge:  940107

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  29	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  49

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFEM, SASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

931127:	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 the summary court-martial under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.

931127:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

931128:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91:
	Specification: Disrespectful in language on 931117.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 123A (11 specs):
	Specifications 1-11: Wrongful and unlawful uttering of checks.
	Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128:
	Specification: Unlawful assault on 931117.
	Finding: to Charge I, II and III and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $300.00, confinement or 20 days.
	CA action 931130:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

931202:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

931206:	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 19940107 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).

In the Applicant’s issue 1, he states that he wants to re-enlist.  His post-service accomplishments include earning an associates degree, and remaining employed.  The Applicant states too many external stressors caused him to go astray as well as the failure of his chain of command to attempt to salvage an errant sailor.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error of propriety or equity must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No such errors were discovered during a review of the Applicant’s enlistment and subsequent discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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 can be considered.  Examples of documentation to provide to the Board for consideration include verification of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle.  At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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), Change 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91 (disrespect), Article 123A (writing bad checks), and Article 128 (assault), if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.
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