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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

   ex-ENS, USNR
Docket No. ND05-01173

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050708.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060316.  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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Honorable by reason of substandard performance of duty.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter: 

“My Separation Code is unjust due to the fact that it does not properly describe my performance and it is based off of unsubstantiated and erroneous information.

1.  I respectfully request to have my separation code changed from “LMN” - substandard performance, to a general code that will allow me to be reappointed to the Naval Reserves.  I have always held myself to the highest standards of duty, integrity, and professionalism.  I have taken great pride in my service to my country and I strongly desire the opportunity to continue service in the Naval Reserves.

2.  My performance has never been “substandard”.  In fact, despite the fact that I was the most junior officer, I was the closest of all junior officers to receiving my SWO qualification.  I had already completed Surface Warfare PQS and was considered by the CO and the Senior Watch Officer to be one of the most competent watch standers.  I was further used by the Senior Watch Officer to train incoming junior officers in obtaining their SWO qualifications.

3.  In reference (a), CDR G_ makes several unsubstantiated claims.  He states that I was relieved for cause.  In fact, no cause was ever officially cited in my record or my Fitness Report.  He also mentions that I was brought to Captain’s Mast, which also never officially took place.  I was erroneously charged with Missing Ship’s Movement, but in the subsequent investigation, PHIBRON 3 determined that I acted appropriately.  This is why no formal charges of Missing Ship’s Movement were ever filed.

4.  I was the 3M Officer when ATG reinstated their 3M inspections.  Under my direct supervision, USS DULUTH not only passed the inspection, she set the record as the best maintained ship on the West Coast.  DULUTH XO, LCDR M_ F_ stated for the record that I was the primary reason that she passed the inspection.

5.  CDR G_ improperly based my “substandard performance” on a NJP that never took place.  Due to this fact and the evidence presented, I respectfully request that the Board find that I performed at or above the “standard” and change my Separation Code to reflect this.

6.  The Administrative Separation that blocked my promotion to LTjg was based upon a false premise and was subsequently dismissed.  I respectfully request that I be retroactively promoted to LTjg.

M_ R_(Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from S. A. M_, LT, USN, dtd March 7, 2005
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from S. F. U_, LT, USN, dtd March 17, 2005 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (NROTC)	19980902 - 20010510	Commission

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Commission:  20010511		Date of Discharge:  20040113

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  02
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  Indefinite

Education Level:  16				Degree:  Bachelor of Arts

Highest Grade:  Ensign

Final Officer’s Performance Evaluation Averages:  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):  National Defense Service Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon

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

HONORABLE/substandard performance of duty, authority:  SECNAVINST 1920.6B.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

010511:	Applicant accepted commission in the USNR.

020930:	Fitness Report and Counseling Record Comments:  Ensign R_’s (Applicant) performance has steadily declined over this reporting period and is currently unsatisfactory.  Due to misconduct and unprofessional behavior, I re-assigned him from a line division officer billet to adhoc billet under the direct supervision of the Executive Officer.  He has spent the majority of this reporting period attempting to escape his responsibilities and scheming to get out of his obligated service.
	-Assisted in the command-wide 3M Assessment preparations.  Organized the Schedule of Events and constructed the self-assessment binders for the inspectors.
	-An MWR Custodian, he has maintained perfect accountability of the command’s MWR funds.
	-Has made unsatisfactory progress towards his watchstanding and warfare qualifications.  His failure to gain my trust and confidence has led to his removal from the underway watchbill.  He is currently not assigned to any meaningful watchstation.
Ensign R_ has demonstrated to be an individual of questionable integrity and to be more interested in ill gotten gains than the goals of the command or Navy’s.  He has clearly shown and expressed no potential to be an effective officer.  He is not recommended for advancement or retention.

031001:	Applicant’s rebuttal statement to Fitness Report of 020930.

030221:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for separation by reason of substandard performance of duty; specifically, failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade, failure to achieve or maintain acceptable standards of proficiency required of an officer of his grade, and failure to discharge the duties expected of an officer of his grade.  Applicant notified that the recommended characterization of service is Honorable.

030429:	Applicant acknowledged his rights, elected not to tender his resignation and desired to submit a statement.

030509:	Applicant’s promotion to Lieutenant, Junior Grade, was delayed due to pending administrative separation processing.

030515:	Applicant’s reply statement to notification of administrative separation.

030528:	Applicant submitted a qualified letter of resignation.  Applicant acknowledged that if accepted, he would receive an Honorable discharge.

030624:	Commander, Amphibious Group THREE recommended to Commander, Naval Personnel Command that Applicant’s qualified resignation request be accepted and that he be separated with an Honorable discharge.

030804:	Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.

031031:	Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved recommendation for honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.

040113:	DD-214:  Applicant discharged with an Honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.

The Service Record was missing elements of the Administrative Discharge Package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040113 by reason of substandard performance of duty (A) with a service characterization of honorable.  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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant was separated by reason of substandard performance of duty with an Honorable discharge.  The Applicant was properly notified of administrative separation processing by reason of substandard performance of duty.  The Show Cause Authority reviewed the Applicant’s case and determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the Applicant’s separation from the Naval service.  Based upon this notification, the Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for his separation from the Naval service.  The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs accepted this resignation request on 20031031.  Subsequently, the Applicant was discharged with an Honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

The Applicant contends that his Narrative Reason for Separation should be changed because it does not properly describe his performance and it based on unsubstantiated and erroneous information.  In support of his position, the Applicant has submitted several letters from fellow officers that support his contentions.  After a careful review of the Applicant’s submissions along with the evidence of record, the NDRB concluded that relief is not warranted.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption permits the Board to presume that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the Applicant’s Naval service and subsequent administrative processing.  The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  Although the Applicant has presented evidence to suggest an improper motive on the part of his commanding officer, the Board concluded that such evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in this case.  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.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present 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. 14 Mar 97.

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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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