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

   
   ex-AOAR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00013

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 200400930.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “rate reduction.”  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 20050107.  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 and reason for the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“ The discharge I received was improper due to one isolated, civilian conviction.  This charge was used to in my discharge proceedings.  I also need Discharged changed for Job with Police Department. I have a Family now, and I need To be Able To Seek Employment To Take Care of my Family.  By Granting me This Discharge, my life will change for the better.

Thank you

E_ L. F_

Attached is one of the letters, I received From a Police Force Due To my Current Discharge.  This is why I Need The change from General under Honorable to Honorable.”

Documentation

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

Copy of Applicant’s DD Form 214
Copy of letter from C_T_, dtd 16 September 2004
Copy of Application Disqualifiers form, dtd 9/13/04

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910509 - 911014	COG
	Active:   USN 			911015 - 951012	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951013		Date of Discharge:  970516

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  07  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  45

Highest Rate:  AOAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.10 (6)		Behavior:  2.73 (6)		OTA:  2.91

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCM, MUC, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

951013:	Applicant reenlisted for 4 years this date.

951210:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunk Driving
	Specification 1: In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, on or about 0215, 23 September 1995, on Dragon Drive operate a vehicle, to wit, a passenger car, while impaired.
	Award: Reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months), forfeiture of $580.95 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

960828:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 86, 92, and 134.
Charge I: Violation of Art 86, Failing to go or leaving place of duty (2 specs).
	Specification 1: In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, on or about 9 August 1996, without authority, go from his appointed place of duty, to wit: Squadron Safety Standdown located at the Base Theater.
	Specification 2: In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, on or about 11 August 1996, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Patrol Squadron THIRTY Duty Section Muster.
Charge II: Violation of Art 92, failure to obey other lawful order.
Specification:  In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, on or about 9 August 1996, fail to obey the same by wrongfully driving on board the Naval Air Station.
Charge III: Violation of Art 134, false or unauthorized pass offense.
Specification: In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, on or about 9 August 1996, wrongfully possess with intent to deceive another’s official pass, he, the said accused, then well knowing the same to be unauthorized.
Award:  Reduction in rank, forfeiture $437.40, restriction and extra duties for 30 days.

961003:	Administrative Counseling/ Warning:  Advised of deficiency (violation of UCMJ Art 92, failure to obey other lawful order, violation of UCMJ Art 134, false or unauthorized pass offense), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

961028:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey and order or regulation.
Specification: In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Aviation Electronics Technician Senior chief R_ W_, to report to work at 0730, 30 August 1996 with a full seabag for inspection, an order which it was his duty to obey, did on board Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, on or about 30 August 1996, fail to obey the same by wrongfully reporting to work without his seabag.
	Award: 15 days extra duties. No indication of appeal in the record.

970313:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Specification:  In that Aviation Ordnanceman E_ L. F_, U.S. Navy, Patrol Squadron Thirty, on active duty, did, on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, on or about 1800, 11 December 1996, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: Patrol Squadron THIRTY. Located at Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, and did remain so absent until on or about 12 December 1996. 
	Award: Restricted to NAS Jacksonville, FL for 15 days and 15 days extra duties. No indication of appeal in the record.

970317:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your [Applicant] current enlistment.

970317:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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 

970320:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): “ Inability to comply with orders and regulations have characterized Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Recruit F_ ‘s career over the last six months.  Each UCMJ violation shows a total disregard for basic core values.  Even with counseling and opportunities to improve, Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Recruit F_ has failed to meet his responsibilities in the Unites States Navy.  The appropriate course of action is administrative separation.  Accordingly, I recommend Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Recruit F_ ‘s characterization of service to be General (Under Honorable Conditions).”

970514:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Dereliction in the performance of duties
	Award:  Restriction for 2 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970613:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  BUPERS advised PATRON THREE: “FYI, Per MPM 3610240.1H, members must be processed for all reasons for which minimum criteria are met.  SNM’s [Applicant] VUCMJ Art 92 and 111 constitute serious offenses.  Ensure that all future cases comply with the aforementioned article.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970516 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The Applicant contends that he served the United States well and he is entitled to an upgrade.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 during this period of enlistment was marred by 5 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 92, 111 and 134 of the UCMJ.  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 summary of service clearly documents that misconduct, pattern of misconduct, was the reason the applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation more clearly describes why the applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief based on this issue is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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 naval service.  The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  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.  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his 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, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  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.

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

D.  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