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

 ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND04-00275

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031201.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “ADMIN SEP.”  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 20040818.  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 and reason for 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.  “I AM NOT SURE IF CHANGE REASON FOR DISCHARGE WOULD READ ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE
OR IF RE-4 BOX 27 DD 214 IN CERTIFICATE IS CHANGEABLE.”

2.  “Discharge Review Board:

Upon submission of this review application, I am currently a licensed Assembles of God minister.  I am pastoring a church of 100 people in Kentucky.  It has been 8 years of school and hard work to be where I am.

I never lost my heart for the Military.  I am desiring to minister to U.S. troops through the Chaplain services of the Civil Air Patrol, I am requesting this review because I am unable to extend any service due to my discharge.  I humbly ask for a reconsideration.

Leading up to my discharge, I had requested a Court Martial because I was falsely accused.  Unfortunately, I allowed my peers to persuade me into believing that the trial would be unfair and that I would “hang” before I was allowed to bring allegations against a 2nd Class Petty officer.  I upset others that didn’t follow through; opting instead for Captain’s mast.  The Captain was upset, but not without words of wisdom.  He told me that my character references were good, I was a good corpsman and the Navy needed good corpsman.  He also said I could start over and before long be back to where I was.  I did not want to start over again and requested an Administrative Separation. It was granted but not without a price.  The Captain was correct it would have been easier to start over and go on in the Military.  I left frustrated and condemned.

I have no hidden motives or agenda and would openly answer any questions.

Thank-you
Respectfully,

Rev. C_ M”

Documentation

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

License
Photograph
Applicant’s DD Form 215
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940421 - 941031	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  941101		Date of Discharge:  961227

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  4

*No marks found in service record.

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:

960125:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0650, 951221 to 0650, 951225 (4 days/surrendered).
	Award:  Correctional custody for 30 days, forfeiture of $490 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961121:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from place of duty on 1120-1845, 961112, to wit: Security Office, violation of UCMJ Article 91 (3 specs): (1) Willfully disobeyed lawful order on 961017, to wit: to remove the trash he had placed into the incorrect trash receptacle, (2) Disrespectful in language on 961017 by saying he would put the trash anywhere he wanted, (3) Disobey a lawful order on 1100, 961017, to wit: leaving the barracks in his vehicle, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on 1100, 961017, to wit: I don’t have a military identification card, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on MS2 on 961017, to wit: running into MS2 with his vehicle and striking him in the leg.
	Award: Forfeiture of $490 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961213:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

961213:	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.

961227:	Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge 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 19961227 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge 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).

Issues 1 & 2:  A characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a departure from that expected of a Sailor.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for violations of Articles 86, 91 and 107 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant’s misconduct and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to honorable or a narrative reason change would be inappropriate.  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.  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.

Concerning reenlistment, 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.  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 only 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 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