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

   ex-AEAN, USNR(TAR)
Docket No. ND03-00138

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: GENRAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action

Documentation

In addition to the service record, 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: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19941129		Date of Discharge:  19981119

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  24
	Inactive:  00  06  26

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  78

Highest Rate:  AE3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM, BER (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950626:	Applicant to active duty.

970316:	Applicant arrested for driving while under the influence.

980928:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: Attempt to commit offense under UCMJ, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Having knowledge of lawful order, failing to obey on 980530, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct in public on 980530, violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunk and reckless operation of a vehicle on 970316, violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): Absent from place of duty on 0730-1230, 980829 and (2) Absent from place of duty on 1330 – 1530, 980829 and (3) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 0001-0004, 890831, to wit: VF-201 duty office(4) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 0730-0930, 890331, to wit: VF-201 duty office.
	Award: Reduction to AEAN  No indication of appeal in the record.

981028:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments: AN (Applicant) attended Level III rehabilitation in May-Jun 196.  He was subsequently arrested for DWI in Burleson Texas on 15 March 1997.  Additionally, AN (Applicant) was involved in an altercation on station involving alcohol.  Both of these incidents clearly constitute a failure of the rehabilitation program and I cannot recommended retention of this individual.  Based on a review of his service to date, I recommend discharge with a characterization of General (under honorable conditions).

981105:	Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth directed the Applicant’s discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981119 with a general (under 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, D, and E).

Issue 1.  The Applicant states his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action.

The facts of this discharge are that the Applicant had one NJP on September 28, 1998 for violation of UCMJ Articles 80, 86 (unauthorized absence on 19980829, 19890831, and 19890331), 92 (failure to obey a lawful order on 19980530), 111 (drunk and reckless operation of a vehicle on 19970316), and 134 (disorderly conduct in public on 19980530).  The serious offense violations were Articles 92, and 111.  The record shows the Applicant had more than one incident in 40 months of service.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of the Applicant’s 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 include of documentation to forward to the Board include proof 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 (if appropriate).  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

He 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.  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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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.

E  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), and Article 111 (drunken driving), if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial.

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