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

ex-MT2 USN 
Docket No. ND03-01407

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030825.  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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040617.  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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 12 years of military service with no other adverse action.  I never once denied my involvement or try to use what I did as an excuse.  When I was sent to my special court marshall, I went with the knowledge that my military career was going to be looked at.  It was not.  I accepted my sentence and still had 5 months before I was discharged for my command to evaluate me, during that time or even the year before my.”

2.  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 12 years of military service with no other adverse action.  When you review my service record you will see why I received the discharge I got, and I do not deny any wrongdoing nor will I try to make any excuses for it.  I feel as though I was being punished with all the personnel that was being released for drugs which was running rampant when I got to Commander Submarine Group Nine (CSG-9),  The group Admiral had decided he was going to take a hands on approach and made an example of those on hold for the rest of the fleet to see and I feel I was lumped in with them.  What I want is for someone to hear me, in the year and a half that I was on hold waiting for my special court marshal no one in my immediate upper chain of command at CSG-9 asked me whether I had any problems that may have led to said events, wanted to know if we might be able to salvage my military career, I doubt they really cared.  I did not exist to them, yet when other personnel who had been in the navy for far less time than I were being removed from their boats for their individual indiscretions they were being called in to see the Executive Officer to discuss whether they even wanted to have a naval career.  I had given them 12 years of excellent service wanted the opportunity to show them that I could recover from my mistake and still be an integral part of an operating naval vessel.  I had been told by my former command (USS florida) I would be given every chance to redeem myself, but as I wilted away in what is called naval purgatory I began to get the feeling that I did not matter only those who they thought they might be able to change.  Now I do not have a chance at redemption, I will never be able to show that I could recover from a major indiscretion, and I have learned to live with that.  All I want is a second opinion from someone who will take into account my entire naval career and see that I am not an Other Than Honorable individual but something more.”

Documentation

Only the Applicant’s service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	900628 - 900918	COG
	Active:   USN 			900919 - 960418	HON
					960419 – 991005	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991006		Date of Discharge:  021024

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  19 (Doesn’t exclude confinement.)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  5

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  MT2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.5 (4)	Behavior:  2.0 (4)		OTA:  3.08

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin (6), NDSM(2), GCM(3), SSDR,  Navy “E” Ribbon, Navy Expert Pistol Medal, Flag LoC(4)

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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020206:	Special Court Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
Specification:  On or about Oct 00 through Mar 01, was derelict in the performance of those duties that he negligently failed to maintain proper accounting of USS FLORIDA (SSBN728) (BLUE) Emblematic Sales Change Fund, as it was his duty to do.
Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (2 Specifications)
	Specification 1:  On or about Oct 00 through Mar 01, steal USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728) Morale Welfare, and Recreation emblematic materials, of more than $100.00 the property of USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728) (BLUE).
	Specification 2:  On or about Oct 00 through Mar 01, wrongfully appropriate USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728) Morale Welfare, and Recreation funds, of more than $100.00 the property of USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728) (BLUE).
	Findings:  to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
	To Charge II and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, not guilty of specification 1, guilty of specification 2.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 105 days, and a Bad Conduct Discharge.
	CA 020318:  Confinement for 105 days and a Bad Conduct Discharge but suspended for 6 months provided member pays amount of $3,000.00 to 
the USS FLORIDA (SSBN 728) (BLUE) MWR Fund.

020318:	To confinement.

020623:	From confinement.

020911:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

020911:	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.

020925:	Commanding Officer, Staff Enlisted Personnel, Submarine Group NINE recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

021015:	Commander, Submarine Group NINE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, with a separation code of “GKQ”.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 021024 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issues 1-2. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “12 years.”  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 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 record is marred by a conviction at a special court-martial for violations of Articles 92 and 121 of the UCMJ, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief denied.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.  The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.  Therefore, relief is 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 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 92 and 102, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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