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

ex-ASAR, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00413

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030116.  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 20031215.  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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  It’s been a year since I filed my first application to review my discharge and respectfully request to change it to honorable.  I made several attempts to contact my precious command to ask a copy of my administrative discharge package and no record found.  If you review my records it will show you I enlisted on Aug 95 it should be EAOS or discharged should be Aug 99, I was Capt Mast twice for unauthorized absent which I called my supervisor and notify him the situation.  I was stationed at Whidbey Island WA went on leave at San Diego first incident, it was airline rep error why I didn’t make the flight I was at the airport on time for my flight but for some reason my name was not on the computer, I called my supervisor when I’m still in the airport with the airline rep and let him speak with him but my supervisor is not available we left a message I waited in the airport just to see if I can catch a flight but no luck.  They sent me to mast for that 2nd  incident I had a car broke down called my supervisor also still they sent me to Capt Mast for the second time. I was thinking why is this happining.  My command AIMD after the 2nd Captain Mast ask me if I want to get out in the Navy.  I gave the navy 4 good yrs”.

“My discharge was improper because I did what I have to do, I informed my supervisor on the incident they said UA (unauthorized absent) I called my supervisor, I was Capt Mast, punishment reduce of rank but not ask to be separated.  My command AIDM know I had a little marital problem, so they ask me if I want to get out the service.  I said yes I enlisted 95 Aug 29 sign for 4 yrs of service got a good conduct medal on the 3rd year.  So I really don’t think misconduct is the reason for my separation that’s probably why my command doesn’t have a copy of my discharge package.”

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)	950822 - 950828	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950829		Date of Discharge:  990920

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (9 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  ASAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, JMUC, HSM, CGMUC, NMOSR, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  3

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980731:	UA from 0700-1100, 980731 (4 hours).

990728:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 990705-990707 (2days), violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful written instruction.
	Award:  Reduction in rate to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

990823:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 0700, 990809, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Intermediate Maintenance Department, NAS Whidbey Island, and did remain so absent until on or about 0700, 990810.
Award:  Vacate suspended reduction in rate of 990728 with additional reduction in rate.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990823:	Reduction to next inferior paygrade awarded at CO’s NJP dated 990728 vacated due to further misconduct.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990920 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 and D).

Issue 1.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The applicant's blatant violation of the UCMJ constituted a serious offense.  The applicant's DD Form 214, Block 26, Separation Code, indicates he was separated for misconduct based on the commission of a serious offense.  No other Separation Code, or Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Separation Code, or the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  The Applicant has not presented sufficient credible evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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.  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.

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