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

ex-AA, USNR
Docket No. ND03-01114

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030612.  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 20040430.  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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Hi my name is R_ S_ (Applicant), I am a former service member of the United States Navy. I originally enlisted for a three (3) year term, but because of some unfortunate circumstances I was unable to complete my full enlistment.  I was discharged with an administrative discharge under honorable conditions, on September 20, 1997, which was exactly one year short of my full three years.  The event that led to my unfortunate discharge was when I went UA.  Although being UA is a very serious offense at the time I saw no other alternative.  My sister and her husband was going through some problems and at the same time my ship was doing work ups for a six (6) month deployment.  I tried to take leave but it was denied.  I am not making excuses for my actions however my sister and I are very close so I felt that I had to be there.  Until that particular time in my life, I had all ways been there for my mother and my sister.  Therefore being away from home for the first time and not being available for my sister in her time of need made me very confused.  I realized that what I did was wrong so I went back to face my punishment.  I did not think that my punishment would be as severe as being discharged before my enlistment was up.  To this day being discharged before my time was up, hurt me more than all the restriction that I did. I will never be able to say that I finished my enlistment, so it will always look as though I quit to everyone.  More significantly it will look that way to me.  I know I cannot change what I did, so I look at the mistake as one of life’s many lessons
Before I went U.A., my Navy career had been served honorably, I did my job to the best of my ability and I followed orders.  I was very surprised that the Captain did not allow me to finish out my enlistment.  Now as I look back on the incident that occurred I see why they could have caused me my Navy career.  I am very proud of my two years that I spent in the Navy and I wish that I could do it all again so that I could finish what I started out to do.  However, I was able to finish paying into the Montgomery GI Bill that I signed up for, and if possible I would like to be able to use it.  I know however, that my discharge must be an honorable one before I am able to take advantage of the Montgomery GI bill, so I am asking you now to please upgrade my discharge to an Honorable Discharge.  I am 25 years old, married, and a few days away from being a father of a son or daughter.  I have been working full time for three and a half years at a manufacturing plant located in South Carolina (Mancor, Carolina Inc).  I have been attending college for a year and a half at Midlands Technical College, located in Columbia South Carolina.  All of the money for tuition and books have been coming out of my own pocket, hut with a baby on the way and with the rising cost of tuition I will not be able to afford it any more.  The core values that the Navy instilled in me shines now more than ever so I am very determined to finish school and earn my degree.  I am definitely not the same R_ S_ (Applicant) that went UA 5 years ago but the person that I am now is definitely someone the Navy would be proud to give an honorable discharge to.
In conclusion, I ask again that you please consider upgrading my discharge to an Honorable Discharge so that I can use the Montgomery GI Bill to pay for college based on the extreme circumstances that led to my unfortunate discharge.

Thanking you in advance for your time.

R_ S_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950920		Date of Discharge:  970923

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  00  04
	Inactive:  00  06  05

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.67 (3)	Behavior:  2.67 (3)		OTA:  2.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFSM, NATO, SSDR, JMUC, HSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  29

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950920:	Applicant to active duty for 3 years.

970812:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 2000, 970619 to 1535, 970719 (29 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship’s movement by design on 970620.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $505 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AA.  Forfeiture of 1 month suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970812:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Misconduct as evidenced by your nonjudicial punishment on 970812, for VUCMJ, Art 86: Unauthorized absence from 970619 to 970719, and VUCMJ, missing ship’s movement on 970620.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

970904:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from restricted men’s muster at 0600, 970903.
	Award: Bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970918:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

970918:	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.

970922:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and convenience of the government on the basis of enuresis as evidenced by qualified urological evaluation.

970923:	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 19970923 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) on two separate occasions 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.  

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB).  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veteran’s benefits and this issue does not serve to provide foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  

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 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, 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