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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND03-01346

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030807.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 20040628.  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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Since I have been discharged out of the Navy, I have gotten married, have had 2 children and completing my bachelor degree in Psychology.  I am writing to ask that my discharge & under other than honorable can be change to general under honorable. I am seeking a career in the military as an officer.  I have gown up and learned from and still learning from my past mistakes.  I have also joined the Georgia Army National Guard.  I regret that I did not get a letter of recommendation from my commanding officer Captin B_ D_.  I have been in the guard since December of 1999.  I have completed a mos in the guard as a supply specialist.  I have also received the rank of E-4 in the guard.  My reason to change my discharge is to become an officer in the military.  I know that I will be great officer.  I have change throughout the years and I am still changing and learning from the military and personal experiences.”

Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION."  None were found.

Documentation

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

Character reference from Training Officer, Fort Valley State University, dated May 12, 2003
Character reference from Professor of Military Science, Fort Valley State University, dated May 2, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940204 - 940222	ELS
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940223		Date of Discharge:  951206

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  2.80 (2)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SASM with Bronze Star

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940927:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Your inability to adapt to the naval service as evidenced by your continued difficulties with your chain of command, leaving your work center without permission and often reacts with anger when directed to complete even the simplest of tasks.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
951024:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Falsified an official statement with the intent to deceive by saying to the XO, “having gave me the checks which were already made out to me and all I did was endorse the checks: which statement is totally false, on 951017.
	Award: Forfeiture of $427 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

951027:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

951027:	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.

951112:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

951128:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge.  [The second page of authorization of administrative discharge missing from Applicant’ service record.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19951206 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 available 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.  The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for falsifying an official statement with the intent to deceive.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for a characterization of service of (general) under honorable conditions.  The evidence of record and statements provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  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 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 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