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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND03-01120

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030611.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040812.  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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period, should read:  "1999 AUG 24" vice "1999 SEP 17."  Additionally, 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read “02 03 22” vice “02 02 27”.  The Commander, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I think my discharge was improper because no one knew what I was going through.  I lost my boyfriend in the military on Nov 2, 2000.  But I was on restriction then for going UA.  The reason I went UA was because I was pregnant and he wanted me to have an abortion.  So I got upset and came back home to MS.  But he talked me to coming back to get it over with.  So I came back and got the abortion done and went to mast.  So while I was in restriction he went to jump school.  And on Nov 2, 2000 he did his first jump and his cords got wrapped around his legs.  That was very painful for me, I just really got over that in June of 2002, when I had my son.  But while I was grieving I got close to a petty officer at my squadron.  We became real close, like brother and sister.  He help me alot to try to pull myself back together, but on Apr 3, 2001 AM2 S___ lost his life to violence and I really didn’t know what to do.  But my CO was very, very wonderful for letting me go to his hometown and sing at his funeral.  Does situations really had me down and still do sometimes.  So later on I met my sons father and got pregnant in September 2001.  I didn’t know how to take care of a baby.  I didn’t know what to do and I wasn’t about to kill another innocent child.  So I panicked and went UA because I didn’t know how to deal with all that pressure.”

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990812 - 990823	COG
	Active:  USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990824		Date of Discharge:  011214

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  36

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.50 (2)	Behavior:  1.50 (2)		OTA:  2.58

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  24 [Extracted from DD Form 214]

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

001017	NJP for unknown reasons.  Unknown award, information extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604

001127:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

011114:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specifications):  Unauthorized absence.
	Award: Forfeiture of ½ month pay for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record dated 010716 thru 011214].

011214:	Applicant discharged General Under Honorable Conditions by reason of Misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct per MILPERSMAN 1910-140 [Extracted from DD Form 214].

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011214 with a general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of government affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1:  Applicant alleges that her misconduct was due to several personal tragedies that significantly impaired her ability for Naval service.  After reviewing the Applicant's service record, the Board found that the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as other than honorable was proper and equitable.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general discharge is warranted when significant 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Furthermore, 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.  Relief denied.

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 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.  At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

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 her 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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B.  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.

C.  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.

D.  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.  

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