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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-EMFN, USN 
Docket No. ND05-01370

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050818.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Conv. of Govt.”  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant designated a civilian counsel as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060608.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

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

“ISSUE 1.  The Applicant was not properly processed for discharge involving misconduct by commission of a serious offense, as his service record is devoid of evidence of serious misconduct.

ISSUE 2.  Assuming arguendo that the Applicant was properly processed for discharge, the applicable character of discharge should have been Honorable.

ISSUE 3.  The significant post-service accomplishments of the Applicant’s service during the past six years, merit a fully Honorable discharge.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (civilian counsel):

“On June 17, 1999, Electrician’s Mate Fireman M_ M_(applicant) was discharged from active duty at Personnel Support Detachment Point Loma, San Diego, California after two years, two months and four days of service.  He received a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions.  The stated basis for separation was Misconduct MILPERSMAN 1910-142 (commission of a serious offense).

As a member of the submarine community during most of his naval service, Mr. M_(applicant) served honorably.  The character of his final discharge as General, vice fully Honorable, was not equitable.  The quality of his military service during this enlistment period, as well as his overall post-Navy good character, achievements, employment and positive contributions to society independently merit upgrade of the character of his discharge to fully Honorable.

ISSUES SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD

ISSUE 1.	The applicant was not properly processed for discharge involving misconduct by commission of a serious offense, as his service record is devoid of evidence of serious misconduct.

ISSUE 2.	Assuming arguendo that the applicant was properly processed for discharge, the applicable character of discharge should have been Honorable.

ISSUE 3.	The significant post-service accomplishments of the applicant’s service during the past six years, merit a fully Honorable discharge.

BACKGROUND

M_ M_(applicant) was born on February 28, 1975, in Los Angeles, California.  His father previously served on active duty in the US Air Force and subsequently joined the US Naval Reserve and went on to retire as a Commander in the Civil Engineer Corps.  Mr. M_(applicant)’ mother was also trained as an engineer.  Unfortunately, his childhood was filled with stress due in part to a suicide by gunshot to the head of his 19-year-old half brother when Mr. M_(applicant) was just 14 years old.

Mr. M_(applicant) graduated from high school and later joined the Navy on April 14, 1997.  Prior to joining the Navy, he had never been in any trouble with civilian law enforcement authorities.  Due to his superior intellect and proficiency, he qualified for enlisted nuclear power training and went through the demanding training pipeline which included Electrician “A” school, Navy Nuclear Power School and Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operator Electrical School, where he was in the top 5% of his class.  Ultimately, he was assigned to USS JEFFERSON CITY (SSN-759) home ported at Submarine Base Point Loma, San Diego, California.

In February 1999, Mr. M_(applicant) married K_ W_ and they had a baby daughter born in March 1999.  Shortly after the birth of his daughter Mr. M_(applicant) experienced general anxiety disorders.  Upon further examination, Mr. M_(applicant) was eventually medically determined to be not fit for full sea duty.  Mr. M_(applicant)’s anxiety disorder continued to grow worse.
In June of 1999, Mr. M_(applicant) was separated from the Navy with the current character of discharge being General, under Honorable conditions.  The stated basis for the discharge was misconduct - commission of a serious offense.  At the time, Mr. M_(applicant) was experiencing a variety of symptoms including headaches, sleep problems, nightmares, nervous stomach, decreased motivation, rapid heart beat, shortness of breath, and impaired concentration.  Under these conditions, and with these symptoms, it was difficult, if not impossible, for Mr. M_(applicant) to continue service in the Navy while assigned to a nuclear submarine.  Consequently, when proposed for separation, he did not resist the discharge, even though he did not have a full and clear understanding of the consequences of a General discharge — nor at the time did he fully understand the basis for the discharge as one of misconduct.

LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGE CHARACTERIZATION

EMFN M_(applicant) was discharged on June 17, 1999 with a General Discharge based on Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) section 1910-142, Misconduct, Commission Serious Offense.

A review of MILPERSMAN 1910-142 indicates that a member may be separated based commission of a serious military or civilian offense only when:

(1)	specific circumstance of offense warrant separation; and

(2)	offense would warrant a punitive discharge per MCM, appendix 12 for the same or closely related offense.

The offense must also be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence (e.g. copy of police report, Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation, etc.)

A review of Mr. M_(applicant)’s entire Navy service record, as provided directly by the Navy Personnel Command (see enclosure 1), is devoid of any evidence of commission of a serious offense as that term is defined by the MILPERSMAN above.

It is noted that the service record of Mr. M_(applicant) does contain a Court-Memorandum (“Page 7”) which documents a nonjudicial punishment for another service member from another ship which occurred in 2004, several years after the discharge of Mr. M_(applicant).  The service record of Mr. M_(applicant) contains no evidence of misconduct by Mr. M_(applicant).

Turning to MILPERSMAN section 19 10-304, the following guidelines are provided relative to character of discharge.

Assign Honorable-
When the quality of the member’s service generally met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for Naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate.

Applying the facts of Mr. M_(applicant)’s case to the above standards, the Board is left with the following incontrovertible fact: M_ M_(applicant) was a Sailor who always performed well during training until he reported to his first duty station.  But for his medical problems, the quality of his overall service had been honest and faithful.  The Navy was in error in issuing a General discharge to Mr. M_(applicant) and the original basis for separation had not been met.  Accordingly, the only proper characterization now would be fully Honorable.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE

The Navy Discharge Review Board normally operates under a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  In the case of M_ M_(applicant), that presumption is unfounded for two reasons.  First, his service record contains no evidence to support the discharge based on commission of a serious offense.  Second, Mr. M_(applicant)’ record does contain an erroneous filing of another sailor’s nonjudicial punishment record.  Mr. M_(applicant)’ service contains a P601-7R concerning MMFN E_ R_ H_ dated 18 February 2004.  This document was created over four years after Mr. M_(applicant)’ discharge.  This affirmative fact provides clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of Governmental affairs has been overcome in this case and is not applicable as applied to Mr. M_(applicant)’s case.

Accordingly, the record reflects that M_ M_(applicant) should not have been discharged for misconduct, and under no circumstances should he have received anything less than a fully Honorable discharge.

OUTSTANDING POST-NAVY SERVICE

Since being separated from the Navy, Mr. M_(applicant) has demonstrated many virtues of excellent citizenship.  He is still married and the M_(applicant)’s had their second child in July 2004.

After his separation from the Navy, Mr. M_(applicant) sought out education and employment which would make the best use of his specialized engineering training.  He is currently employed by the Boeing Company as an Engineer/Scientist Level 2 within their Integrated Defense System Organization.  (See enclosure 2).  He has continued his education by completing the Certificate Program in Systems Engineering from the California Institute of Technology on February 10, 2005.  (See enclosure 3).

Prior to his present position at Boeing, Mr. M_(applicant) was a student and faculty assistant at Mt. Sierra College where he was exposed to a rigorous computer networking, project management, database, software design and programming academic program.  He was awarded his Bachelor of Science degree on June 22, 2003, exactly four years and five days after his separation from the Navy.  (See enclosure 4).

G_ A. D_, Chairman of the Mount Sierra College information Technology program writes the following about Mr. M_ (“N_”) M_(applicant):

Throughout the time I have known M_, I have witnessed firsthand the qualities that aided him endure through the many experiences in his life....  He has become a model parents husband and engineer.  It is a pleasure to know M_ M_(applicant).  He is someone who has truly earned an Honorable discharge from the United States Navy.

(See enclosure 5).

Dr. N_ H_and, his supervisor at of the Boeing Company writes:

Throughout the past year I have witnessed firsthand his personal character traits and professional performance as his lead and mentor.  M_ works hard at this assignment that requires intensive interfaces with both government and Boeing’s internal group5~ including subcontractors, in order to accomplish his tasks...  It is a pleasure to know M_ M_(applicant) and would consider him as truly earning an honorable discharge from the United States Navy.
(See enclosure 6).

Brigadier General W_ B_, US Air Force (Ret) writes:

I met N_(applicant) in past years and on several occasions before and after his graduation fr0m college.  It is quite impressive that he is able to accept employment with the Boeing company as a System Engineer.  He is outspoken, close-knit with his family and continues to pursue advancement in his field.  I am quite comfortable to state that he is a fine individual of high moral character and has the potential for greater accomplishments in the engineering field...  I, enthusiastically, submit this recommendation to consider a request that M_ M_ C_ M_(applicant) separation from military service be upgraded to Honorable discharge.
(See enclosure 7).

Commander M_ M_(applicant) CEC, USNR (Ret) writes:

It is my strong belief that the Naval Service has not provided my son the opportunity of due process in designating his discharge from the military service.  Although he was meticulous in performing his duties, his unit did not wait for the convening of a medical review board, instead separated him on a General discharge.  N_(applicant) followed in a long line of family in military service.  He is the youngest of eight children and the third to go in to the military.  [In additional to my own career service] My father, M_ C. M_ served in the US Army (active regular) from 1914 through 1949, was a POW at the Battan Death March and a guerrilla who fought in World War II.
(See enclosure 8).

CONCLUSION

On rare occasions the military personnel discharge system does not work as it was intended and individuals fall mistakenly through the cracks.  M_ M_(applicant) was one of those people.  Wrongly discharged with an unfair characterization as General, he is fully deserving of redress in this application.

Mr. M_(applicant) has absolutely no ill will toward the Navy, the process or the system.  Although he has now become a successful civilian engineer with one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, he still proudly remembers his time in uniform.  For over five years since leaving active duty, Mr. M_(applicant) has lived an exemplary life and made a true success of himself through his educational achievements, and personal and occupational accomplishments.  In accordance with the guidance of the Navy Discharge Review Board, he waited over five years to request this discharge upgrade to prove that he has maintained a positive and productive lifestyle in his civilian capacity.

We believe that based on both the lack of clear facts to justify the characterization of discharge, as well as the underlying basis for the discharge, and the significant positive post-service accomplishments of Mr. M_(applicant) over the past six years, the only fair disposition for the Board is to change the character of discharge from General to fully Honorable.  The basis for discharge should also be changed to Convenience of the Government - Physical or Mental Conditions.

On behalf of M_ M_(applicant) and his entire family, we sincerely thank the members of the Board for their careful and thoughtful review of his application and this legal brief with supporting enclosures.

Date:  August 10,2005

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
R_ B_ W_, Es	.
Gaglione Law Group
Attorneys at Law
(address deleted)
(telephone number deleted)
(Facsimile number deleted)
(E-mail address deleted)”

Documentation

In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Legal brief from R_ B_ W_, Esq, Gaglione Law Group, dtd August 10, 2005 (10 pages)
Enclosures index
Correspondence, to Attorney W_ from D.P. G_. FOIA/PA Officer, of the Navy Personnel Command in Millington, TN, with copy of Mr. M_(Applicant)’s Navy service record attached, dtd February 28, 2005 (38 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Correspondence to Mr. M_(Applicant) from J_ A_, Staffing Specialist with Global Staffing at Boeing, dtd May 10, 2004
Certificate of Completion from the California Institute of Technology Industrial Relations Center certifying Mr. M_(Applicant)’s completion of the Systems Engineering Certificate Program with Boeing, dtd February 10, 2005
Bachelor of Science Degree in the field of Computer Information Technology from Mt. Sierra College awarded to Mr. M_(Applicant) on June 22, 2003
Character Reference from G_ D_, Department Chair of Computer Information Technology at Mt. Sierra College, dtd May 20, 2005.
Character Reference from N_ T. H_, of Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, dtd May 20, 2005
Character Reference from W_ C. B_ II, Brigadier General, MC, USAF (Ret.) in St. Louis, Missouri, dtd June 13, 2005
Character Reference from M_ T. M_, Jr., Commander, U.S. Navy Reserve (Ret.), Ph.D. in Duarte, California, dtd June 7, 2005
Letter from R_ B_ W_, Applicant’s attorney, dtd December 27, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19970218 - 19970413	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19970414		Date of Discharge:  19990617

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  04
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  4 (24 month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  93

Highest Rate:  EM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  None

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

970211:	Pre-service waiver granted.

990405:	Medical evaluation by ED-psychiatry.
	AXIS I: Malingering
	Occupational problem
	AXIS II: No diagnosis.
	AXIS III: None.
	AXIS IV: Routine naval service.
	AXIS V: 80
	Recommendation:
	(1) Patient is fit for duty, however recommend no deployment at present.
	(2) Patient is not currently suicidal, however, in light of his recent threats of suicide contingent upon submarine deployment, recommend command administrative action based upon an assessment of his suitability for continued naval service.
	(3) Patient does not appear to have a psychiatric diagnosis at this time.
	(4) Discussed with staff.  Capt M. F_, MC, USN.
	Treatment in order to reduce patient’s anxiety about duty was offered but patient refused stating that he didn’t think it would be of any use.

990507:	Medical evaluation by A. J. G_, Ph.D., Staff Psychologist at Mental Health Unit, Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA
	AXIS I: 1. Anxiety disorder, NOS, EPTS
	2. R/O generalized anxiety disorder
	3. R/O obsessive compulsive disorder
	4. Bereavement, complicated, EPTS
	5. R/O posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic
	AXIS II: Deferred.
	AXIS III: None known.
	AXIS IV: Problems with primary support group – suicide of brother when member was 14, newborn daughter, problems related to the social environment – work-related separation from family; problems related to interaction with the legal system/crime – anticipated charges from recent UA/missing ship’s movements.
	AXIS V: GAF = 51-60 (for past year), moderate symptoms, frequent anxiety attacks.
	Recommendations: 1. Return to duty – psychologically fit, suitable, and responsible for actions pending further evaluation and psychological testing.
	2.  Suicide risk low and acceptable at present.  Doesn’t drink excessively, has no plan and is willing and able to seek assistance should situation worsen.
	3. Psychological testing to be done in MHU next week.  Member to call on Monday 5/10/99 to schedule an appointment.
	4. Recommend couples communication and parenting classes with wife through FSC.
	5. May attend Junior Enlisted Group, NTC MHU on Tuesdays, 1400-1500, weekly.
6. To attend next session of Anxiety/Phobia Workshop.  Will be notified of when and where at time.
7. Recommend through medical evaluation with thyroid function tests.
8. RTC Friday 5/28/99 @ 1300 for further evaluation and follow-up.  Modalities: Individual and group/educational outpatient counseling.  Goals: Improvement of mood, coping skills, and functioning.  Length of treatment: 1 or 9 sessions/month, 4-6 months, to be re-evaluated periodically.
9. RTC for problems.  POC Dr. G_.
10. Diagnostic Impression and Recommendation were discussed with member who indicated understanding.
11. Please bring this report to the direct attention of this member’s Commanding Officer or Executive Officer.
12. Dr. R_ was contacted concerning disposition.

990519:	Medical evaluation by A. J. G_. Ph.D., Staff Psychologist at Mental Health Unit, Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA
	AXIS I: 1. Generalized anxiety disorder.
	2. Bereavement, complicated, EPTS.
	3. R/O posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic.
	AXIS II: 1. No diagnosis.
	AXIS III: Pain ankle, right.
	AXIS IV: Problems with primary support group – suicide of brother when member was 14, newborn daughter. Problems related to the social environment – work related separation from family.  Problems related to interaction with the legal system/crime – anticipated charges from recent UA/missing ship’s movement.
	AXIS V: GAF = 51-60 (for past year), moderate symptoms, frequent anxiety attacks.
	Recommendations: 1. Return to duty – psychologically not fit for full duty.  Being considered for PEB.  Is suitable, and responsible for actions.
	2. Suicide risk low and acceptable at present.  Doesn’t drink excessively, has no plan and is willing and able to seek assistance should situation worsen.
	3. Recommend Couple Communication and Parenting Classes with wife through FSC.
	4. May attend Junior Enlisted Group, NTC MHU on Tuesdays, 1400-1500, weekly.
	5. To attend next session of Anxiety/Phobia Workshop.  Will be notified of when and where at time.
	6. Recommend thorough medical evaluation with thyroid function tests.
	7. RTC Friday 5/28/99 @ 1300 for further evaluation and follow-up.
	8. RTC for problems.  POC Dr. G_.
	9. Recommendations were discussed with member who indicated understanding.
	10. Please bring this report to the direct attention of this member’s Commanding Officer or Executive Officer.

990528:	Medical evaluation by A. J. G_, Ph.D., Staff Psychologist, at Mental Health Unit, Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA
	AXIS I: 1. Generalize Anxiety Disorder, EPTS/SA.
	2. Bereavement, Complicated, EPTS.
	3. R/O Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic
	AXIS II: 1. No diagnosis.
	AXIS III: 1. Pain ankle, right.
	AXIS IV: Problems with primary support group – suicide of brother when member was 14, newborn daughter, intergenerational-intercultural differences.  Problems related to the social environment – work-related separation from family.  Occupational problems – job loss, unclear career goals.  Problems related to interaction with the legal system/crime – NJP.
	AXIS V: GAF=51-60 (for past year), moderate symptoms, frequent anxiety attacks.
	Recommendations: 1. Return to duty – psychologically not fit for full duty.  Is suitable and responsible for actions.  Recommend, if possible, that restriction be completed in a less dangerous environment than on board a ship/boat.
	2. Suicide risk low and acceptable at present.  Doesn’t drink excessively, has no plan and is willing and able to seek assistance should situation worsen.
	3. Recommend Couples Communication and Parenting Classes with wife through FSC.
	4. May attend Junior Enlisted Group, NTC MHU on Tuesdays, 1400-1530, weekly.
	5. Strongly recommend follow-up through VA for problems when separated.
	6. RTC for problems, POC Dr. G_.
	7. Recommendations were discussed with member who indicated understanding.

990617:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package and Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990617 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general under honorable conditions.  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 (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

The Applicant alleges impropriety in that he “was not properly processed for discharge involving misconduct by commission of a serious offense, as his service record is devoid of evidence of serious misconduct.” In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs.  The Board presumed the Applicant was notified of the intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, was advised of his rights and provided the opportunity to consult with counsel, and elected or waived each right.  The Board presumed that the Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Medical record entries referencing the Applicant’s difficulties with the legal system, including his anticipation of charges for unauthorized absence and missing movement, support the Government’s presumption that a serious offense was committed. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, that the discharge was not proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant’s service record contains “an erroneous filing from another sailor’s nonjudicial punishment record.” The Applicant’s counsel contends that this misfiled document “provides clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs has been overcome in this case.” The official service record reviewed by the Board did not contain this misfiled document. Even if it was present, a document erroneously included in the Applicant’s official record, and dated over four years after the Applicant’s discharge, could not have affected the discharge process. This issue does not create a basis for relief. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant alleges inequity in that his service was honorable and the character of discharge should have been honorable. 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.  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 government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed the Applicant’s service was marred by the commission of a serious offense.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant’s counsel contends that “but for his medical problems, the quality of his overall service had been honest and faithful.” The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed the Applicant committed a serious offense.  Competent medical authority evaluated the Applicant and stated on 990507, 990519, and 990528 the he was responsible for his own actions. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. For the Applicant’s edification, DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation.  SECNAVINST 1850.4 stipulates that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Relief denied. 

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered.  The Applicant provided four letters of recommendation, a letter documenting a job offer, a college degree certificate, and a certificate of training completion as documentation of post-service accomplishments.  The Applicant could have produced a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.  

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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  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 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 87, missing movement.

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.

E.  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