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

  ex-FC3, USN
Docket No. ND04-01197

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040722.  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 a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050304.  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.  “The issue for the basis for my discharge is the fact that I went to jail for traffic violations.  I feel my service record was very adequate.  I was UA for 15 days.  I was never put through a non-judicial punishment.  I was merely separated by a civilian.  I would hope that you would feel I have high potential.  I would love to be an enlisted man again.  I miss the life, felt it was my destiny.  I will not disappoint you if allowed to be re-entered into the life of a fire-controlman.”

Documentation

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

None were submitted

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970418 - 970729	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970730		Date of Discharge:  000209

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  10	(Does not exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  FC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (1)		Behavior:  3.00 (1)		OTA:  3.29

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  15

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:

991110:	Applicant apprehended by Virginia Beach Police Department for civil charges.

991110:	Civil Conviction:  Virginia Beach Circuit Court.  Violations not found in service record.
Sentenced and served time at Virginia Beach County Jail.  No further information found in service record.
Civil charges resolved.

991110:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1400, 991110.

991125:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0730, 991125 (15 days/surrendered).

000209:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000209 under other than honorable conditions for 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 complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1:  The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by either nonjudicial or judicial proceedings; however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his action.  Relief denied.

A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by a civil conviction and an unauthorized absence totaling 15 days.  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a 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.  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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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