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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-LT, USN 
Docket No. ND05-01051

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050609.  The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable by a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted at the Washington Navy Yard on 20060503.  After a thorough review of all available 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 the characterization of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

The Applicant submitted the following issues at the time of the hearing; these issues supersede those previously submitted with the application.

ISSUE 1:  THE EQUITY OF DISCHARGE – TEN YEARS OF UNBLEMISHED SERVICE, AS SHOWN BY PERSONAL COMMENTS ON FITNESS REPORTS (INCL: THOSE FITNESS REPORTS WHILE BEING INVESTIGATED AND THOSE WRITTEN POST-MAST).  MY FINAL FITREP (SURFPAC) READS, IN ITS FINAL LINES, “HIS MATURE JUDGMENT, ACUMEN, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY ARE ABOVE REPROACH.  HE IS MOST STRONGLY RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION AND ANY POSITION OF INCREASED SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITY.”

ISSUE 2:  LIFE/CAREER AFTER SERVICE – HIRED TO BE DIRECTOR, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO LEAD CPD THROUGH 1996 DEMOCRATIC NAT’L CONVENTION.  ASKED (AND ACCEPTED) BY RTC GREAT LAKES (ADM POLATY) TO HEAD THE NAVY COUNCIL TO THE COMMUNITY.  FOUNDED AND CHAIR AN ENDOWED CHARITABLE FOUNDATION THAT HAS DONATED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO ILLINOIS CHARITIES.
	+ GOVERNOR APPOINTEE TO THE GREAT LAKES INT’L PORT AUTHORITY BOARD 
	+ CEO OF A 3,500 EMPLOYEE COMPANY W/29 FACILITIES IN ILLINOIS
	+ UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MBA AND PHD (AWAITING DEFENSE)
	+ NUMEROUS OTHER BOARDS
	+ MORE THAN 200 HOURS OF VOLUNTEER COMMUNITY SERVICE EVERY YEAR

Documentation

The Applicant submitted the following documentation to be considered in addition to his testemony and service record:

Officer Fitness Report for the period of 92 Jul 31 - 93 Jan 31 (page 2 only)
Officer Fitness Report for the period of 93 Feb 01 - 94 Jan 31 (page 2 only)
Officer Fitness Report for the period of 94 Mar 08 – 95 Jan 31 (2 pages)
Letter of Qualified Resignation, dated April 04, 1995
Statement regarding nonjudicial punishment ICO Lt P_ C. J_, USN, dated 07 November 1994 (3 pages, unsigned)
Authorization to wear Naval Aviator Insignia, dated 23 Apr 1990 (2 copies)

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 Commission:  850522			Date of Discharge:  950615

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    10 00 24
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			None

Age at Commission:  21

Years Contracted:  Indefinite

Education Level:  Bachelor of Science

Highest Rank:  LT

Final Officer’s Performance Evaluation Averages:  Officer’s performance reports were available to the Board for review.

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Navy Commendation Medal w/Gold Star; Navy Achievement Medal; Combat Action Ribbon; Navy Unit Commendation; National Defense Service Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal w/3 Bronze Stars; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon w/2 Bronze Stars; Kuwait Liberation Medal; Expert Rifle Medal; Expert Pistol Shot Medal; Naval Aviator Wings; Master Parachutist Wings

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  BUPERS ORDER 1285 of 95May08.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

850522:	Applicant commissioned as an Ensign in the United States Navy and commenced active duty.

851004:	Applicant completed Public Affairs Officer Course (9 week course held from 850730 through 851014).

860627:	Applicant completed Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia, ranked 39 of 48.  Designator changed to 3100.

870522:	Applicant promoted to the rank of Lieutenant, junior grade.

870610:	Applicant completed Personnel Qualification Standard for Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) aboard USS Independence (CV 62).

880719:	Applicant determined to be not physically qualified for further aviation training prior to completing flight training.  [Extracted from Officer Fitness Report 871211-880719.]

890601:	Applicant promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.

940830:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 133 (3 specs):
	Specification 1:  In that Lieutenant P_ C. J_ (Applicant), US Navy, on active duty, did, on board, as Director, Navy Public Affairs Center, San Diego, CA, from on or about August 1993 to November 1993, engage in conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, by wrongfully and dishonorably displaying, on one or more occasions, to subordinate command members, including LT J_ A_ C_, JOCS D_ G_, JO1 J_ G_, YN2 T_ H_, and PHAN J_ L_, a large gray foam object carved to look like a penis, demonstrating disrespect for CAPT W_ H_, USNR, Officer-in-Charge, San Francisco Reserve Detachment 220, who was then  known by LT J_ to be his superior commissioned officer, and creating a sexually offensive environment.
	Specification 2:  In that Lieutenant P_ C. J_ (Applicant), US Navy, on active duty, did, on board, as Director, Navy Public Affairs Center, San Diego, CA, from on or about Fall 1992 to Spring 1993, engage in conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, by wrongfully and dishonorably saying, on one or more occasions: “I wouldn’t f--- PH1 E_ A_ with YN2 S_ P_’s d---,” or words to that effect, to subordinate command members, including LT J_ A_ C_, JOCS D_ G_, YN2 T_ H_, and JO3 R_ O_, demonstrating cruelty and disrespect toward PH1 A_, a petty officer under his command, and creating a sexually offensive environment.
	Specification 3:  In that Lieutenant P_ C. J_ (Applicant), US Navy, on active duty, did, on board, as Director, Navy Public Affairs Center, San Diego, CA, from on or about December 1992, engage in conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, by wrongfully and dishonorably saying: “Would you do her?”, or words to that effect, to JO1 J_ G_, a subordinate command member, demonstrating disrespect toward a commissioned officer, LTJG L_ Z_, and creating a sexually offensive environment.
	Award:  Written reprimand.  Appealed 940831.  Appeal denied 941014.

940830:	Applicant given a punitive letter of reprimand by Commander, Carrier Group One for conduct unbecoming and officer and a gentleman.

940831:	Applicant appealed his nonjudicial punishment of 940830 alleging the findings and punishment awarded were unjust.

940923:	Commander, Carrier Group One forwarded Applicant’s NJP appeal to Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, recommending denial.

941014:	Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, denied the Applicant’s NJP appeal.

941107:	Applicant’s statement for inclusion in his service record regarding his nonjudicial punishment submitted this date.

941111:	Commander, Carrier Group One, Punitive Letter of Reprimand forwarded to Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-82), via Chief of Information, for inclusion in Applicant’s service record.  

950123:	Chief of Naval Information endorsed and forwarded Applicant’s Punitive Letter of Reprimand to Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-82).  Chief of Naval Information recommends the decision as to whether the Applicant be required to show cause for retention be delayed until after the LCDR selection board reports out.

950216:	Chief of Naval Personnel reviewed Applicant’s case and determined there was sufficient evidence to require the Applicant to show cause for retention in the Naval Service based on misconduct and substandard performance of duty.  Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service that may be recommended in under other than honorable conditions.

950327:	Applicant tendered his qualified resignation request for an Honorable discharge.  [Extracted from Chief of Naval Personnel letter of 9504XX.]

9504XX:	Chief of Naval Personnel denied Applicant’s qualified resignation request for an Honorable discharge because requested characterization of service is not consistent with the guidelines of SECNAVINST 1920.6A for officers who have been notified to show cause for retention in the Naval Service.

950404:	Applicant tendered a qualified resignation request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  

950414:	Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Secretary of the Navy approval of Applicant’s qualified resignation request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in lieu of further administrative show cause proceedings.  Chief of Naval Personnel states that Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, recommends approval of an Honorable discharge while Chief of Naval Information recommends approval of Applicant’s qualified resignation.

950428:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s qualified resignation request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious military offense.

970310:	NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND97-00207 conducted.  Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950615 by reason of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  After a thorough review of the Applicant’s testimony, all available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process.  After a thorough review of Applicant’s case the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity.  When the service of an officer of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  Applicable regulations require that an officer’s characterization of service be based upon his total performance of duty and conduct.  The Applicant’s service was tarnished by nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the UCMJ, Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer, 3 specifications).  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A, dictates that when an officer is separated for misconduct his characterization of service will normally be under other than honorable conditions.  Therefore the Board found his general (under honorable conditions) characterization appropriate.  Relief is not warranted.

	The Applicant contends that he requested to be discharged with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) in an effort to expedite his resignation following his acceptance of civil employment.  The record documents that this resignation request followed the Chief of Naval Personnel’s direction to require the Applicant to show cause for retention in the Naval Service based on misconduct and substandard performance of duty.  Furthermore, the Applicant was notified that the least favorable characterization of service that may result from this show cause proceeding was under other than honorable conditions.  The NDRB found the Applicant's issue without merit.  Relief not warranted.

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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Applicant claims the following undocumented post service accomplishments; he is the CEO of a large corporation, has earned his MBA and completed the class work for a PHD, headed the Navy council to the community, organized more than three million dollars of corporate donations, has been appointed to the Great Lakes International Port Authority Board, and personally volunteers more than 200 hours per year.  The Board concluded the Applicant’s unsubstantiated post service conduct to be insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service.  Relief denied.

The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant.  The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB.  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.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

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.

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