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

  ex-AA, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00579

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050216.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050601.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, an impropriety 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 change.  The discharge shall become:  HONORABLE/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “First, I’d like to say that, I am sorry that this request is so long after my date of discharge.  I didn’t know at that date that I was required to ask for change of discharge.  I was informed by Personnel at separation that after six months, my discharge would be automatically upgraded.  I do need an Honorable discharge to receive the G.I. Bill, & I’m also interested in re-entering the service.  This can only help my situation, as I am very eager to pursue a career in Journalism & I believe the military has a good opportunity as much in potential for Journalism as I can find.  The G.I. Bill also gives me much needed assistance for an A.A. Degree.  I believe that I am deserving of an Honorable Discharge because I did serve well.  My final rank should have been an E-3; I did test for it, but was injured while at sea right after testing, & never was able to confirm my having passed.  My dates of unauthorized absence I don’t try to excuse.  I went U.A. on Feb. 9, 1995 (the day I was put on Limited Duty-medical, 6 months) because I had severe emotional problems I had not dealt with, including my grandfather dying & me not being able to see him.  I am sorry for what I know to have been a serious neglect of duty, but I did return to face disciplinary action without excuse.  My second U.A. date was May 05, 1995 & was my having not been able to get a ride from L.A. to San Diego, a dumb mistake on my part.  The third U.A. date is an error by HC-3 or N.A.S. North Island, because I was on restriction to the base at that time & can prove my having not been notified of being U.A., because I was at H.C.-3 that day.  I’ve probably come off as being long-winded, but I am definitely eager to have this decided, so I may move on to the next step.  Thank you. [signed] D. N. W_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

None were submitted.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: None
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920624		Date of Discharge:  950809

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  04	(Does not exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  00  11  13

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (2)		Behavior:  3.70 (2)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  26

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930406:	Applicant reported for two years of active duty.

941216:	Inpatient admission and disposition: Traumatic partial amputation digital 2nd and 3rd digits of right hand.

950125:	LIMDU shortform completed 950206.  EAOS is 950405.

950209:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 950209.

950303:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1345, 950303 (24 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 950427.

950317:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 950209 to 950303.
	Award: Forfeiture of $478 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 25 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950505:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 950505.

950506:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0740, 950506 (1 day/surrendered).

950517:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0830, 950517.

950519:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0730, 950519 (1 days/surrendered).

950525:	NJP:  No further information found in service record.  [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record.]

950526:	Psychological Evaluation: Applicant feeling increased frustration with Navy due to being here beyond his EOS due to being on LIMDU for a hand injury.  He may be extended another 6 according to patient….His original LIMDU expires Aug95.  Plan: LIMDU for hand.  Discussed assertiveness techniques.  FSC – Miramar career counseling.  RTC PRN.  Patients feelings deemed normal response.

950605:	Naval Medical Center: Will be fit for full duty/discharge at the completion of current LIMDU period.

950717:	Orthopedic appointment: Assessment: Well healed.  Plan: Fit for full duty.

950809:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of completion of required active duty service, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950809 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of completion of required active duty service (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 improper (C).

Issue 1.  A review of the Applicant’s service record indicates that he was discharged as a result of the expiration of his active obligated service (EAOS).  Applicable regulations state that the characterization of an EAOS discharge must be determined solely by the servicemember’s average marks on the Enlisted Performance Evaluation System.  The Applicant’s average performance marks were 3.8, average behavior marks were 3.7, and his overall trait average was 3.8.  The Board found that the Applicant’s marks were sufficient to merit an honorable characterization based upon the standards that were in effect at the time of the Applicant’s discharge.  As such, the Board voted unanimously that the Applicant’s characterization of service shall change to honorable.  Relief granted. 

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The NDRB has no authority to grant additional relief in this case.  The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C) Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3620150, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT, FULFILLMENT OF SERVICE OBLIGATION, OR EXPIRATION OF TOUR OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

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.

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