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

   ex-RM1, USN
Docket No. ND05-00134

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041029.  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 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 of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated:

1.  “I am requesting an upgrade of my military discharge.  I was discharged from the U.S. Navy in 1993 with a discharge of “General Under Honorable Conditions”.  Also on my DD-214 is a statement that I committed a “serious offense”, which was never genuinely admitted by myself nor shown proof that the offense was committed.  Even with that, I agreed with the discharge that I got, and seeing the circumstances surrounding it, the discharge was justified.  I have been out of the Navy for over 11 years now and also I am a Federal Government employee.  My conduct becoming is different than when this occurred and I feel that in the interest of all concerned, that an upgrade to my discharge would be sufficient.  I am a “saved” Christian man doing the work and will of GOD that pertains to my own life, and the things that I did long time ago have no effect on my life today.  It is in the interest of this that I submit the paperwork for an upgrade in my discharge.  Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.”

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: 	USNR (DEP)		790531 - 790923	COG
USNR (DEP)		831027 - 831205	COG
	Active:   	USN			790924 - 830921	HON
		   	USN			831206 - 891203	HON

Period of Service Under Review: 6

Date of Enlistment:  891204		Date of Discharge:  930906

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  08  26
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  58

Highest Rate:  EM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (4)		Behavior:  4.00 (4)		OTA:  4.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  B’E’R, NUC, NEM, SSDR (2), NDSM, NOSR (3), GCM (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

911212:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111:  Operating a vehicle while drunk.
Award:  Forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 2 month(s), RIR, RIR susp 6 mos.

911212:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (DWI), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

930608:	Drug and Alcohol Evaluation.  Applicant appears to be alcohol dependant.  Recommend administrative separation, being a Level III aftercare failure and for having three alcohol related incidents while on active duty.  

930616:	Statement for the record ICO [Applicant]:
“…[Applicant] failed to appear for quarters and his initial Quarterdeck watch…  Upon arrival at the command, it was apparent to the Operations Officer that he consumed numerous alcoholic beverages the night before.  His breath had a strong alcoholic odor and he appeared to be somewhat dysfunctional…  He was ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and refrain from any further consumption of alcoholic beverages.  Since that time, [Applicant] has been seen in various drinking establishments.”

930721:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930721:	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.

930722:	Commanding Officer recommended a GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.   

930823:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) discharge 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 awarded a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge on 19930906 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.  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 was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of Article 111 of the UCMJ, drunken driving, a serious offense.  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 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, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any 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 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 111, for drunken driving, 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