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

 ex-AT3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00800

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030402.  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 20040312.  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 my discharge be upgraded to Honorable.  The following list my issues:

2.  My discharge came through as “General under Honorable” because, as it was explained to me by my Assistant Division Officer, Lt A____ that even though I had requested to get out of the military the Manual of Court Martial directed that they had to place my reason of discharge as “misconduct” due to a prior incident in my service record.  After the death of my grandfather, my ability to cope with life and the strict guidance's of military life waned quickly.  It seemed that my command was “out to get me”, as it were.

3.  The command relieved me of my Auxiliary Security Force duties, something I derived a great deal of pleasure from, the command assigned me TAD gate guard even though I’d already served my mandatory TAD nearly two years prior, I was verbally assaulted with humiliating and racial slurs from OS2 C___ of the CMAA office while on gate guard duty.

4.  All of these event lead up to a point that, after the verbal barrage from OS2 C__ over the phone, I did in fact slam the phone onto the counter of the gate guard shack several times, the only damage to the phone was a cracked face plate.  My gate partner then informed our supervisor after shift that I had “torn apart the guard shack” and I was blamed and prosecuted not only for the broken phone, but everything else that was scratched, worn or broken inside the shack.  I had filed previous written complaints to the NAS but nothing was ever done about them.

5.  I requested to get out of the Navy after my “suicidal thoughts” landed me at Bethesda Naval hospital for a weekend, where the counselor determined that there was nothing wrong with me, that I was just a completely stressed out kid that could no longer function or “conform“ to the Navy.  After my stay at Bethesda and I had made my formal request to get out, I was told that I would be headed home in no more than 30 days.  It wasn’t until 10DEC1995 that I learned I was finally being discharged, 10 days before my discharge.  I was then informed of my “less than honorable” discharge due to the incident described in 4.  I still feel the “misconduct” is a completely unfair representation of my military career.”

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide any  additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910722 - 920301	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920302		Date of Discharge:  951220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  09  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  AT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.86 (3)	Behavior:  3.60 (3)		OTA:  3.86

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Pistol Sharpshooter, 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:

950414:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Military property of the United States, sale, lose, damage, destruction, or wrongfully disposition.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $175.00pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

951108:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

951108:	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 submit statement on own behalf either verbally or in writing and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

951121:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  

951205:	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 19951220 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).

Issues 1-5.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when certain negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for destroying government property.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The NDRB is authorized 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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence pertaining 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