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

ex-DN, USN 
Docket No. ND03-00903

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030424.  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 20040408.  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.  “Dear Sir or Maam

I consider my discharge was inequitable based on an situation I was in rather than the charge I was aliged of.  I have served 8 years and 11 months in the US Navy.  In that time I have recieved 3 good conduct medals, 2 national Defense, a Navy achievement meal and 6 meritious unit comindations.  Allong with these accomplishment I served 3 years with the Fleet Marine Force.  At the time of my discharge I had been treated for 3 months for severe depression (which is well documented in my medical record.  Not to blame my chain of command in any way this illness was my own.  As a result I made some minor disciplinary mistakes.  As a nine year E-4 the depression I was experiencing and higher-tenar I was facing gave me a grime out look at best.  Currently I am enrolled in college and seeking my GI Bill benefits that I pay in for.  I am proud of my time in the Navy.  If needed I can request letters from former commanding officers to back up my statements.

(1) I have enclosed some quals for your review.

(2) I have enclosed my final medical screening for your review.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter.

Respectfully, J_ D_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Twenty-two pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  ARNG (DEP)	921222 – 930729	ELS
    USNR (DEP)	931026 - 931226	COG
	Active:    USN			931227 - 010116	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  010117		Date of Discharge:  021118

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  26			Years Contracted:  2

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  DT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.67 (3)	Behavior:  3.00 (3)		OTA:  3.19

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  N&MCAM, FMFR, MUC (3), NDSM (2), GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

010117:	Applicant reenlisted for 2 years.

021025:	Retention Warning from [Naval Dental Center Gulf Coast, Pensacola, FL]:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence, failing to be at appointed place of duty at the required time, failing to obey orders during the time frame 24-25 October 2002.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

021030:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence between 0700, 020824 and 0645, 020827, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation on 020825, to wit: unknown quantity of various goods and services, with a value of $84.63, through the unauthorized use of his government travel charge card, property of the United States Navy and then consumed such beverages.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to DN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

021101:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

021104:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.

021104:	Applicant advised of 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.

021115:	Commanding Officer directed the Applicant’s discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021118 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:  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 depression was a contributing factor, it does 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) 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, 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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