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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00449

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060206.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions).  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 20061214.  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 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “MISCONDUCT.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I S_ E. L_(Applicant) am requesting this upgrade of my discharged from the U.S. Navy, based on the grounds of I was misinformed of the circumstances of my my discharge.  When I was discharged I was informed that after 6 months that my discharge would be upgraded at that time.  I only recently upon receiving a new copy of my DD 214 that I was misinformed.  Also I am hoping that as long as it has been and the fact that I have no misdemeanors or felonies other than a few traffic citations in the past 12 years that I have been out of the Navy that this will improve my situation.  All of these years I have not fully understood why I have had trouble getting good jobs.

While I was in the Navy I feel because I was not getting along with some of my shipmates including my Senior NCO’s.  I was being made an example of every time I stepped out of line.  Meaning if I got into trouble for something it was exagerated on and I was given extra duties or looked over for special privledges.

I understand that this is only my point of view and that there may not be any way to find out other circumstances or to find out other point of view but maybe this will help in you decision.

Thank you for your understanding

S_ L_”

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant, undated
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service - 2)

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:  19910712		Date of Discharge:  19930824

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  15  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  00  07  28

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  3 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  10 GED			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.4 (2)		Behavior:  2.7 (2)			OTA:  2.80

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

920310:	Commenced active duty for a period of 2 years.

921231:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 1300 on 921231.

930104:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0715 on 930104 (3 days/surrendered).

930203:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 921231-930104.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-1.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930324:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA fm his appointed place of duty on, 930317, 0700 to 930317 0745.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: 
Specification 1: Wrongful possession of alcoholic beverage while under the age of 21, on 930323.
Specification 2: At Bremerton Washington was overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, incapacitated for work duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $407.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 25 days, reduction to E-1.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930506:	Medical evaluation at Medical Department, USS CARL VINSON (CVN-70).
	20 year old while male 1 year 2 months continuous active duty EAOS 940313.  Referral from division for tying hangman’s noose.  Denies suicidal ideation or intent-done in boredom.
	Two prior mast, UA, ETOH incident, lots of counseling chits, marked immature traits.
	Assessment:
	(1) No suicidal ideation.
	(2) Markedly immature.
	Plan: Return to duty.
	Follow up PRN.
	Study when free time.
930518:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  UA from restricted men’s muster, 930405 at 0630.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disrespectful to a Third Class Petty Officer in language, on 930428 at 2225.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of the performance of his duties, on 930428 at 2135.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930708:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your CO’s nonjudicial punishment issued on 930518 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91.

930708:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.

930708:	Applicant found medically qualified for separation.

930731:	Commanding Officer, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment issued on 930518 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Strongly recommend Other Than Honorable Discharge.”

930813:	BUPERS, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930824 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  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).

The Applicant claims he has no misdemeanors or felonies other than a few traffic citations in the past 12 years.  He is hoping his post service good conduct will improve his chances for an upgrade.  The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  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 and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant states “When I was discharged I was informed that after 6 months that my discharge would be upgraded at that time.”  There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months.  A former service member has 15 years, from the date of discharge, to petition the Board for consideration of an upgrade.  The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months.  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 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 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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, Articles 91 (Disrespect to a Third Class Petty Officer), 92 (Dereliction of the performances of his duties) and 134 (Wrongful possession of alcoholic beverage while under the age of 21).  

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