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

Ex-GMGSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-01312

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040818.  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 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I am requesting an upgrade of my discharge because I feel that I fulfilled my original obligation of four years honorably and dutifully.  I would like to be able to declare my service to my country proudly and honorably, also I would like to be able to acknowledge my selfless contribution and dutiful service along with several worth achievements (contained in my personnel records) to my children with pride.  I realize that I made several mistakes unbecoming to a representative of the greatest military force on earth, not out of malice but out of misdirected youth.  Please consider my request.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Ltr frm Applicant’s mother, undated
Certificate of Appointment dtd 930216
Ltrs of Commendation (3)
Ltr of Appreciation

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890720 - 890827	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890828		Date of Discharge:  940218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  05  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  27			Years Contracted:  4 (12 month extension)

Education Level:  10			AFQT:  85

Highest Rate:  GMG3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (5)	Behavior:  3.64 (5)		OTA:  3.60

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, NDSM, SSDR, OSR, Pistol Sharpshooter Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

890828:	Applicant Extends for 12 months.

930624:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  Willful disobedience of a petty officer.  Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (2 specs):  Spec 1:  Altering I.D. Card.  Spec 2:  Unauthorized possession of Armed Forces I.D. Card.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3 (RIR susp. 6 mos.).  No indication of appeal in the record.

930625:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUCMJ, Art. 91 Willful disobedience of a petty officer, Art 134 (specs) Altering Id Card and unauthorized possession of an Armed Forces I.D. Card), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

940107:	To UA for nine hours.

940121:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a:  Wrongful use of marijuana. Award:  Forfeiture of $552 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940122:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

940122:	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.

940129:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.

940201:	DAAR: Marijuana abuse determined by unit sweep urinalysis.  DAPA and physician found not dependant and recommend separation.  Commanding officer recommended separation.

940204:	CNMPC 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 19940218 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A & B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  The Applicant states he served his “original obligation of four years honorably and dutifully” and that his mistakes were “not out of malice but out of misdirected youth.”  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, willful disobedience of a petty officer and two specifications of a violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ.  All these violations are serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated.  While he may feel that his youth was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, insubordinate conduct, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

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

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