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

ex-MMFA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00617

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030227.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.
In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area.  No respond was received.

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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant. 

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant (2 pages)
Reference Listing from member of Amvets post #120 Mesick, MI (3 pages)
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	861231 - 870602	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870603		Date of Discharge:  890714

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  25

Highest Rate:  MMFN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.73 (3)	Behavior:  2.73 (3)		OTA:  3.06

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, AFEM, SSDR, NAVY”E”

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  19

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

881004:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUCMJ Article 134: wrongfully write 5 signatures on a special request chit on 880922 and VUCMJ Article 86: UA 6 hours on 880922), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

881004:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully write 5 signatures on a request chit on 880926, violation of UCMJ Article 86: UA 8 hours on 880926.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1 (RIR, 30 days Rest/ED suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

890414:	Civil Conviction:  [Duval County Court, Jacksonville, FL] for three counts of felony auto burglary.
Sentence:  Appeared at Duval County Court, Jacksonville, FL on 890511.  Member entered into pre-trial intervention program.  Prosecutor deferred for a period of 12 months from the date of court, provided member meets all conditions set forth in his probation.

890610:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 890417 to 890506 (19 days).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $392.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890611:	Medical officer’s evaluation indicates there is not evidence of neurotic or psychotic disorder, or evidence of physiologic/psychologic addiction to drugs or alcohol.

890611:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, to wit: Commission of and civil arrest for three counts of Auto Burglary (felony) on 890511.

890611:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.

890613:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

890709:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 19890714 under other than 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).

The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions and a civil conviction.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for a general (under honorable) characterization of service.  An upgrade would be inappropriate.  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 15560A), Change 7, effective 
25 May 89 until 20 Aug 89, 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