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

ex-CTASR, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00281

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20021204.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.
The Applicant requests 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 20031114.  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 received by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated:

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “The reason for the request of changing my discharge, Is for getting the funds from the G.I. Bill.  I’m currently attending Heazing College of Birmingham, AL. as a fulltime student.  I respectfully request the change of my discharge, so I’ll be able to use the G.I. Bill for my education.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900522 - 900808	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900809		Date of Discharge:  930406

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  28
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  43

Highest Rate:  CTASN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.24 (5)	Behavior:  3.12 (5)		OTA:  3.12

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910529:	Memorandum/counseling: of deficiency (unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

920728:	Applicant received a letter regarding a delinquent notice from the Norfolk General District Court. 

920925:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Wrongful loss of government property, to wit: Sixth Armed Forces Identification Card.
	Award:  Reduction to CTASA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Majority of the NJP information extracted from CO’s letter dated 930222.]

921117:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Further misconduct or charges.), advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
	
921118:	Vacate suspended reduction to CTASA awarded at CO’s NJP dated 920925 due to continued misconduct.

921118:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): 1 Failure to obey lawful order by continuing to make personal long-distance phone calls on United States Government phones, after being specifically counseled and ordered never to do it again, 2 Operating a motor vehicle aboard Naval Station, Norfolk, while having suspended driving privileges, and after being specifically counseled and ordered never do it again, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation of government property by charging the same long-distance calls to the monthly command phone bill after being specifically counseled and ordered never to do it again..
	Award:  Forfeiture of 7 days pay, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to CTASR.  All punishments suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Majority of the NJP information extracted from CO’s letter dated 930222.]

930202:	Vacate suspended reduction to CTASR awarded at CO’s NJP dated 921118 due to continued misconduct.

930202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Wrongful loss of government property, to wit: loss of seventh Armed Forces Identification Card.
	Award:  Forfeiture of 7 days pay, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to CTASR.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Majority of the NJP information extracted from CO’s letter dated 930222.]

930202:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930202:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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 and submit a statement.

930222:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930326:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 19930406 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Issue 1.  The Applicant requested a change to his discharge in order to use the G.I. Bill for his education.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  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.

Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were identified on the execution of the Applicants discharge.  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, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.   At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  

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.  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