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

 ex-ATAA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00552

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030213.  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 20040128.  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 1910-138 (formerly 3630615).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I believe that with the time that I had already served (3 years) and the time that I had left to serve (1 year), I should have been given the opportunity to fulfill my four-year obligation. My punishment could have been handled in another way besides the ultimate punishment of being discharged. Directly after boot camp I was sent to Millington, TN. I finished the Jobs Oriented Basic Skills Electronics Strand with the highest average in the class (class #96020). Just two months prior to being discharged, in August 1998, I took the AT3 test for the third time. The results came out after I was discharged that I had passed. I feel as though I was very knowledgeable in my skill and would have been a productive worker had I been able to stay in. Since I have been out of the Navy I have been an upstanding citizen and have never been in trouble with the law. I would like to consider joining the Naval Reserves but cannot do so with my type of discharge. I would really like to use my time in the Navy for the benefit of my future and feel as though I have not been able too due to the fact that there are jobs that I am not able to take advantage of because of the type of discharge. I truly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

K_ L_ (Applicant)
SSN (deleted)”

Documentation

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

Honor Certificate, dated January 12, 1996
Citation, dated January 12, 1996

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: Unknown
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950803		Date of Discharge:  981023

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  Unknown

Education Level:  Unknown		AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*  No Marks Found

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-138 (formerly 3630615).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970918:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 970802, to wit: failed to report arrest for DUI/DWI to chain of command.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to ATAA.  Suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980305:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on 0700, 980208, to wit: line division muster, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Drunkenness, incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug.
	Award: Forfeiture of $463 per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days, reduction to ATAA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981007:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 980910, to wit: Hanger 6, (2) Fail to go at the time prescribed at appointed place of duty on 980925, to wit: Hanger 6, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Drunkenness on 980902, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor incapacitated for the proper performance of duties.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to ATAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981023:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-138.

[DISCHARGE PACKAGE MISSING]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981023 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or reenlistment opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Furthermore, the Board disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions.  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, an alcohol-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 03 January 2000, Article 1910-138 (formerly 3630614), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - MINOR DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS.

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