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

 
ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00533

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 discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050118.  After a thorough review of the available 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: 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 respectfully requesting for my discharge to be upgraded from general under honorable conditions to honorable.  One reason being leading up to the discharge I received I was late to work a few times due to my fiance’s difficulties while pregnant.  She at times was unable to watch the kids nor tend to herself.  I had requested for leave and was denied.  Said reasons were due to needing me around.  All I did all day long was empty trash cans & wipe down poles.  This was due to having a back problem.  I really don’t feel I was needed as much as my command lead on.  I was warned not to be late again.  I was also told I had my priorities in the wrong order.  It was the navy first, then it was family.  Thus there I felt I had a problem with.  So I was late again.  Then I was offered the general under honorable condition discharge.  I asked specifically would it keep me from receiving VA benefits, especially my GI bill.  I was told no.  Before now I never tried to go to school.  I receive basically all benefits but this one.  

I was told by my regional office of VA affairs it shouldn’t be a problem getting my discharge upgraded.  I don’t won’t my money to have been wasted.  I really need the education, so I can go out & compete for better jobs because I have a family to support.”

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930323 - 930323	COG
	Active:   None
Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930524		Date of Discharge:  961107

Length of Service (years, months, days):
	Active:    03  05  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  29			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  53

Highest Rate:  SHSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50  (2)		Behavior:  3.50 (2)		OTA:  3.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  2

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:

940809:	Applicant to UA.

940811:	Applicant from UA.

951017:	Applicant to NJP proceedings.  No further entry.

961107:	Applicant discharged with General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

*Discharge package not contained in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19961107 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  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 (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a discharge package (D).    

Issue 1.  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 submitted no documents for the Board’s review and the Applicant’s contention, that he was late a few times as a result of a family situation was not sufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity.  Therefore, relief is denied. 

A general 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 was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings and a two-day period of unauthorized absence.  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 is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, 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.  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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023