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

ex-MM3, USN 
Docket No. ND04-00901

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040408.  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 discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041222.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/HARDSHIP, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “My discharge is inappropriate, in my opinion, and should be upgraded because the one instance of a UCMJ infraction which resulted in Captains Mast was an error in judgement which I learned from and continued good service maintaining my NEC 3385 (Nuclear Machinist Mate).

I received a humanitarian hardship discharge and feel an honorable discharge is justified and something I would be proud of.

I would further like to mention that I wish to pursue a reserve duty status soon and an honorable discharge will assist in the pursuit of joining the Naval Reserves.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Resumé
Letter from Applicant
Package cover letter from Applicant
Report of Administrative Separation
Applicant’s contact information page

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950310 - 950327	COG
	Active:    USN			950328 - 970402	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970403		Date of Discharge:  990825

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  80

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFSM, AFEM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No Marks Found in the service record

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/HARDSHIP, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

971003:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Making false official log entries.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $500.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.
990807:	Commanding Officer, USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71) directed Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of hardship due to mother’s medical problems.  

Partial discharge package

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990825 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to hardship (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 complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for making false log entries.  The statements and documentation provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption that his discharge was proper and equitable.  An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such inequity or impropriety is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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.  However, 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 any 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.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-110 (Previously 3620210), Separation by Reason of Convenience of the Government – Hardship.

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