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

  ex-ASAA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00492

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050131.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 20050511.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “While serving in the U.S. Navy from 06SEP00-21FEB03, besides the mistakes that I made I saw myself as an above average sailor.  I was promoted in boot camp from E-1 –E-2 for exceptional leadership as a port watch section leader.  In A-school I was in charge of a duty section that consisted of approx 60 people.  While stationed at NAS KEFLAVIK, ICELAND I was a patrolman in the NAS Sec. Department as an E-3 I had a lot of responsibility.  I often was in charge of training for my section.  Many of my fellow         patrolman looked up to me for advice.  I was in charge of many disturbances and problems that arose while my section was on duty.  As the first patrolman on the scene I assisted in the delivery of a baby. I do realize that even though I excelled in many ways I also made some mistakes. And for those mistakes I apologize.  I apologize to all military personell for not upholding the proper conduct for an U.S. sailor.  It has been approx two years since my discharge and I feel I have grown and matured since last day of service. I only ask for your forgiveness and that you allow me to have a second chance to not only show my family and friends, but to show you as well that I am sorry and I can put this behind me and look to the future.”

Documentation

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

None were submitted by Applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	000624 - 000906	COG
	Active:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  000907		Date of Discharge:  030221

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  15
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  72

Highest Rate:  ASAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (3)		Behavior:  2.00 (3)		OTA:  2.89

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, PMR, OSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

020626:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Reckless Endangerment.  
Award:  Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. 
020702:  Appeal submitted.
020710: Appeal denied.

020627:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Reckless endangerment as evidenced by pointing a shotgun at a fellow patrolman), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

030206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Orders violation by possessing drug paraphernalia (SECNAVINST. 5300.28C para 5.b.).
	Award: Restriction to the limits of NAS Keflavik for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

030207:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct drug abuse.

030207:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. 

030211:	Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Station Air Station, Keflavik, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the NJP’s of 020626, and 030206.  CO’s comments: “ ASAA G_ ‘s Captain’s Mast, of 6 February 2003, demonstrates a clear lack of judgment and is a significant departure of what is expected from our Sailors.  ASAA G_ was given a second chance after his first Captain’s Mast on 26 June 2002.  His continues reluctance and inability to adopt the Navy’s core values and follow Navy policy indicates a total lack of potential for further useful naval service.  I strongly recommend an Other Than Honorable discharge for ASAA G_.”  

030212:	Commander, Fleet Air Keflavik, authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030221 under other than 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).

Issue 1.  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.  An under other than honorable conditions 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 a retention warning and 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 92 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.

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 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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