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

ex-AME3, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00731

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030319.  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 20040617.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I respectfully request an upgrade in my discharge code from General Under Honorable Conditions to Honorable and an upgrade in reenlistment code from RE-4 to RE-1.

The reason I requested an Administrative Separation was due to depression, grief and financial hardship brought on by the death of my 14 month old daughter.  I saught credit counseling through the command of VF-102 and the counselor did agree that bankruptcy would give me a clean start even though it would destroy my credit.  I knew filing bankruptcy would destroy my credit, but it seemed like the only viable option at the time.  When I informed the command credit counselor of my decision to file bankruptcy, he in turn informed the chain of command.  My division officer informed me that the command was considering taking me to Captain’s Mass because of my intention to file bankruptcy.  I had to sign a page 13 counseling sheet from the division officer.  I informed the division officer that if I was taken to Captain’s Mass, I would request Courtmarshall.  About 2 months later while out at sea aboard the USS America, I was called to Captain’s Mass.  After 2 weeks of being out at sea, I was informed that Courtmarshall was not available on deployment.  At that time, I requested an Administrative Discharge.  The discharge was granted and began when we returned to port.  When the Administrative CPO explained the terms of the discharge, I feel I did not fully understand the RE-4 reinlistment code.  Had I understood the terms, I would not have agreed to the separation.

I have now learned to cope with the death of my daughter and no longer suffer from depression.  I feel I would make an excellent armed forces member as shown in my previous service jacket and as exemplified by my top secret clearance as an AME/AME-3.

Since my discharge, I have worked in the construction field.  I have also trained as a professional boxer, which has given me a “can do “ attitude and has helped me overcome whatever consideration.  I have prayerfully considered my request for the upgrade in my discharge and reenlistment codes.  I pray you will do the same.

Documentation

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

Character Reference Letter from Rev. A__ B. D__, dated February 11, 2003
Copy of Valued Employee Certificate dated December 18, 1999
Copy of Boxing License 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910809 - 911006	COG
	Active:   USN			911007 - 940323	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940324		Date of Discharge:  951108

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  07  15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  AME3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.86 (3)	Behavior:  3.40 (3)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SASM(wb*), AFEM, SSDR, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940324:	Reenlisted at NATTC, Millington, TN for 4 years.

950620:	Counseled on financial responsibilities and agrees to pay his financial debts in full as delineated.

950710:	Counseled on financial responsibilities and agrees to pay his financial debts in full as delineated.

950720:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a written order; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Uttering a worthless check and (2 Specifications), failure to pay just debts.
	Award:  Reduction to E-3, forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 2 months, and 45 days restriction (all suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

950823:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your Captain’s Mast.

950823:	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.

950906:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

950925:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general (under 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 19951108 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:  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While he may feel that his family problems were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating UCMJ, articles 92 and 134 thus substantiating the misconduct.  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, 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.  

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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