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

    ex-AMEAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00134

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021023, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030926.  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)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge for General should be upgraded because although there were a couple of minor write ups, I have never been to Captain’s Mast nor anything has been serious enough to warrant strong action against me I am also enrolling at Southeast College of Technology and unable to use my GI Bill that I contributed to for my education benefits.

Documentation

In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	941018 - 941026	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941027		Date of Discharge:  970425

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  76

Highest Rate:  AMEAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (3)	Behavior:  1.33 (3)		OTA:  1.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM (Desert Storm/Desert Shield), SASM, NUC, AFSM, SSDR, NM, LOA

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

9605xx:	Failed PRT.

9610xx:	Failed PRT.

970424:	Evaluation Report & Counseling Record: Comment on Performance: Evaluation submitted on the occasion of Airman Apprentice H_’s separation from military service.  Airman Apprentice H_’s performance is significantly below that of a typical Airman Apprentice.  He requires constant supervision to accomplish basic tasks.  He has displayed an ability to perform quality work, but his lethargic attitude and lack of a work ethic render him a burden to his work center and division.  Airman Apprentice H_’s is not recommended for advancement or retention due to his failure to meet physical readiness standards.  Specific shortcomings include: Failed April 97 PRT (3rd), Assigned extra military instruction for second letter of indebtedness, Counseled for absence from his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, Counseled for sleeping during watch; Counseled for insubordination, when addressing senior enlisted personnel.

970425:	Officer In Charge, Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Station Norfolk, VA found the applicant physically qualified for separation.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970425 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for physical standard (failed minimum prescribed physical readiness (PRT) standards (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:  The Applicant states he should receive an upgrade because he was never awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP).  The Board disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge. When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A characterization of service of general (under honorable) conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct and performance constitutes a departure of that expected of a Sailor.  Even though the Applicant was never awarded NJP he was counseled for several deficiencies including sleeping on watch, insubordination, and indebtedness.  The Applicant’s inability to meet the minimum standards for both behavior and performance warranted a general characterization in accordance with MILSPERSMAN article 3610250.2b.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.   Relief denied.

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, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   

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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620260, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE. 

B.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97 Article 3420440, HEALTH AND PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.

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