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

  ex-MMFR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00060

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041007.  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 secretarial authority.  The Applicant requested 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 20050214.  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 discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER 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.  “I believe the discharge characterization and the narrative reason for separation should be changed because while the narrative reason says misconduct because of a U/A missed ships movement, I was U/A because of family problems.  Please see enclosed letter.

To Whom It May Concern

I was discharged on the 8th of SEPT 1998 because I was U/A – Unauthorized Absence and missed ships movement.  I was U/A that day because of family problems.  I called home that day to check on my family in NY to find out my now fiancée and loving mother of two children was being harassed and almost robbed at work.  My mother who was living alone was having problems with suspected drug dealers above her apartment.  Having a two year old daughter and only being eighteen at the time I did what I thought was right, rushing home.  I don’t know what the narrative reason for separation should be as long as its not misconduct and it might let me back in.

The reason why I am applying for an upgrade is because I want to be here for our U.S. Navy in one of the times of need.  The U.S. Navy has taught me more than any other life lesson I have encountered.  I have maintained my military bearing, since of pride, physical readiness, ever since I enlisted in the U.S. Navy.  I will never regret enlisting in the U.S. Navy, only regret leaving prematurely.  In order for me to enlist again I have to have my reentry code changed.  I have spoke to the Board of Corrections and in order for them to change my reentry code they told me my best bet would be to apply for an upgrade in discharge and to have my narrative reason for separation changed first.  Please I beg of you, if there is one persons discharge & narrative reason of separation you change please…please let it be mine.  If I had to sign a twenty year contract to show you how serious I am, I would.

I don't want to get too much into excuses for why I left in 98 because we all know what excuses are like.  The truth of the matter is I was young, I have since greatly matured (25 years old).  I have been at the same job since FEB 2000 & have only missed a day of work.  I do not allow myself to call in because my employees know I was in the U.S. Navy and I want to instill in them what the U.S. Navy has done for me.  I know if you give me another chance & if by any chance I have any personal problems I know the U.S. Navy would be there to help me and my family.  So rest assured I would never have another incident like that one.  I don’t think many people want to join the military in the time of war.  I do, I would like nothing better than to be with the family that has instilled so much into me.  I would also like an upgrade for my family.  I come from a limited family with small numbers.  My grandparents were so proud of me when I enlisted they even attended my graduation of boot camp.  I would love to make them proud again.  Since then I have been a member of the U.S. Navy reserve since 2001.  I had such a good work ethic and references that I was allowed into the U.S. Navy reserve.  My time in the reserves has been outstanding.  I have passed the rating exam to become a third class petty officer.  Shortly I will find out if I advanced to second class petty officer.  I have been to Panama City, Florida to attend U.S. navy dive school for a six month class and graduated second in a class of fourteen and the class originated with 36 members.  I missed the top G.P.A by .02 of a point.  Not many people make it through Navy dive school to become elite U.S. navy deep sea divers but I did.  I have a number of references from the reserves.  If the references are going to be a major contributing factor please let me know and I will fill out another application with references.  I hope what I have written will be enough into the type of character of person I am that references will not be needed.  I hope this is enough insight into myself and how much I would like to serve our U.S. Navy again.  Maybe everybody does not deserve a second chance but I would not let another opportunity go to waste.  I would be there in person but I have not called into work yet except for recalls with the reserves.  I thank you for your time greatly and would greatly appreciate an upgrade.

Sincerely
M_ W_ (Applicant)

Being only 25 years old I feel like I still have a lot to offer our U.S. Navy.  If any paperwork, references, or anything is needed during this board meeting please call me and I can fax it to you or mail it.  Thanks (number deleted)

M_ W_” (Applicant)

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD214
Advancement Congratulation Letter, dated November 21, 2003
Letter of Appreciation, dated June 6, 2002
Naval Diving and Salvage Certificate, dated March 21, 2003
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (6 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	970731 - 971123	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  971124		Date of Discharge:  980911

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  09  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  MMFR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA*		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  XX*

*   No Marks made available for review
** Information not contained in the record

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

GENERAL(UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980721:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980911:	Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense per DD Form 214, authority: MILPERSMAN 3630600.

No discharge package available to the Board

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980911 with a general (under 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 Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by family problems.  The Board recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The Board found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other branch of the Armed Forces, the Board 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.  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.  

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) for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (Unauthorized absence), and Article 87 (Missing ships movement), which is considered a serious offense.   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. An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct, was the reason 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.  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 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.  While the Board acknowledges the Applicant’s participation the USNR, the evidence of post-service
documentation was found not be sufficient to mitigate his misconduct to warrant an upgrade to his 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.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence relating 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 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