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

ex-PRAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01169

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030626.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant listed American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040504.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1.  I request that the character of my discharge be upgraded to Honorable due to the fact that the charges against me were manufactured and set up by someone who wanted rid of me in the squadron

When I first reported to my permanent duty station, within 15 minutes my shop supervisor announced that he “didn’t want any rookie parachute rigger” in his shop.  I was thus kept away from my squadron and sent to work in the galley with the MP’s.  The only time I was allowed to work in 1 ½ years was about 7 days.

A surprise inspection was held in the barracks one afternoon.  Contraband (government property) was found in my gear locker and dresser.  I was not aware that it was there, nor did I put it there.  I never had access to any government property.  This was planted in my gear locker and dresser by someone who wanted me permanently out of the squadron.

I was originally charged with felony theft, but the actual charge was misappropriation of government property.  A special Court Martial was held.  The Captain gave me 43 days in the Brig.  I served 30 with good behavior.  After this, I stayed in TPU one night in Norfolk and was outprocessed.  I had been told by my superiors that they were going to try and get me back in the fleet, but instead they sent me home.

I feel this should be changed because:
  1.  I did not place this property in my possession
  2.  I never had access to government property
  3.  This was all accomplished because someone did not want me in the squadron and did everything possible to keep me from working with my squadron.
  4.  I have lived honestly all of my life.  I have had a clean record for the past 11 years.  I have a son to take car of and wish to have this upgrade in part because of him.
  5.  I am going to attempt to re-enter into the National Guard or Reserves and need the character and RE Code changed.
  6.  This injustice had put a serious strain on my family’s relationship with me and I will do anything humanly possible to reconciliate that relationship”. 

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (AMERICAN LEGION):

“7.  (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

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: USNR (DEP)	890404 - 890611	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890612		Date of Discharge:  910118

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  06  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  PRAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (1)	Behavior:  3.20 (1)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900725:	Special Court Martial 
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 121:Wrongful appropriate the property of the U.S. Government a total value of about $264.41 from 900101 until 900228. 
	Findings:  to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 40 days, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2.
	CA 901012:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

900827:	Released from confinement and restored to full duty.

900827:	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 service record entries.

900828:	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.

901030:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

901219:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than 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 19910118 under other than 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 1-3 and 6:  In response to the Applicant's issues, relevant and material details stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by a court-martial conviction for wrongful appropriation of government property.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 4:  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, an alcohol-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.   At this time, the Applicant has not submitted any documentation to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

Issue 5:  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.  However, 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 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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence relating 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 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, 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