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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND04-00527

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040211.  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 20041001.  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 4 to 1 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.  “When I went into the Navy I was to make my parents proud and to start a career.  As soon as basic was over I was sent to Australia.  I wasn’t use to being away from my family.  I didn’t adjust well at all.  I didn’t have a job title I was doing a job at a theater.  I closed the theater down because no one had showed up.  Well as I was leaving two people showed up and I stated that I was closed not knowing they were Lt.  They reported me for closing the theater.  The next incident I was seen riding a bike that wasn’t mine and it was implied that I was stealing the bike.  I was just riding to keep from walking across the base as many other people did.  I feel as though my other than honorable discharge has hindered me from achieving the goals in my life.  I would like to live a productive life in society.”

Documentation

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

Copy of Criminal Record Check (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	None
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900810		Date of Discharge:  920115

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  01
	Inactive:  00  02  05

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

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:

901015:	Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner program.

911108:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 910923; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a order 910927; violation of UCMJ Article 121: Larceny of a 18 speed bicycle of a value of about $1500 the property of DKSA D___ L. M___ 911028.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $75. 00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days to the limits of NCS Harold E. Holt, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911120:	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 your NJP of 911108 for larceny and failure to obey an other lawful order.

911122:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

911122:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP of 911108 for larceny and failure to obey an other lawful order (article 92).  Brief Synopsis of Fact:  Member had been written up for being UA from her place of duty (she had gone to the movies during her watch at the gym).  The report chit was mistakenly given to member and it disappeared.  Member was ordered to deliver a second copy of the chit to 2nd Class Petty Officer an order that she failed to obey.  While that report was pending, a bicycle belonging to another member was found to have been painted.  Member found riding the bike said that SR H___ loaned it to her.  Investigation revealed that SR H___ had been using the bike in question and treating it as her own.  Member admitted to use of the bike but denied painting it.  All charges resolved at one NJP.

911212:	BUPERS 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 19920115 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:  The Applicant contends her disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by her separation from home.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to ensure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment for violations of Articles 86, 92, and 121 of the UCMJ.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, 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