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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CS2, USN
Docket No. ND06-00522

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060301.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  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 General (Under 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 24, Character of Service, should read:  “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).”  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 and/or attached document/letter:

“Dear: Naval Discharge Review Board

I appreciate the time the review board has taken to review my files.  With the interest of the Navy in my mind, I express my concerns of unfortunate termination of U.S. Naval service.  A dedicated Sailor adamantly request to have his Discharge characterization to be changed from General to Honorable, and Re-enlistment code from Re-4 to Re-1.  After a careful review and thoughtful consideration, I’m confident that a change is most defiantly warranted.

I’ve had the pleasure and privilege of serving my country for nearly eight years.  I enlisted into the Navy 97SEP11, I separated and returned to New York City my home of Record 01SEP10.  Not even a day after my separation from Naval service, September 11th occurred, After witnessing this tragic event I decided to fight the good fight, so I re-enlisted once again.  I maneuvered my way back into the Seabees where I knew I would have a better chance of seeing the action I wanted to see.  I had the opportunity to accomplish that goal, Thank you U.S. Navy.  I had the opportunity to accomplish a few things in the Navy that I might not have had the opportunity accomplished any where else.  I love the Navy for the skills I’ve learned and the places I’ve been.  To say the Navy has not made me a better person in and out of the uniform, is to lie.

Shortly after the demise of my Father in 2004, I was in involved in an incident on 04 AUG 29 which lead to the discretional termination of my U.S. Naval career.  In this incident I was a victim in which, I took the law into my own hands in a civilian sector.  With the circumstances at hand, I honestly feel the termination of my Naval service was above the calling of discipline.  I was ordered to an Administrative separation board on 05FEB17.  I received no additional reprimand, such as D.R.B., Captain mast, or anything.  This decision to terminate my Naval service was discretional and should have been dealt with a little more consideration.  I was administratively separated under misconduct (commission of a serious offense).  Between August of 2004 and February of 2005 I received my 2nd good conduct medal.  These actions does not perceive the notion of a Sailor being separated, or in trouble.  The actions taken by my chain of command were not in my best interest, are suspect, and of poor judgement.  Ventura County Court rendered a decision to discharge my case as of 05Mar02.  Ventura County Judicial system had no impact on NBVC”S Administrative decision, due to NBVC’s accelerated administrative proceedings as of 05FEB17.

Upon my separation, 05Apr15 I received a 2.71 progressing evaluation.  Prior to this separation evaluation 05Mar16 I received a 3.60 must promote evaluation.  Just a month later I receive a discreditable evaluation from my chain of command.  My chain of command stated on my 2.71 evaluation a falsified date of my administrative proceedings and I requested make a statement.  I was unable to make a statement about this error, due to receiving my evaluation on the exact date and hour I was escorted off of the base on 05Apr15.  It brings great concerns about the treatment I received and my admin process, Due to the lack of attention to detail my former chain of command has.  If these are the types of actions shown by my chain of command, how much of a fair shake did I really receive? I ask the board of corrections to thoroughly investigate this case.  I’m sure I’m not the first and not last to be swept under the table by the chain of command I had.  I do appreciate the time taken to review this case.  With all due respect, For the sake of retaining good sailors in the pacific region stationed on NBVC, it would not hurt the Navy to look into the practices of some of the authority on that Installation.  Have a fine day.

SINCERELY YOURS
[signed]
C_ S_(Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 for period ending September 10, 2001 (Service - 2)
Applicant’s DD Form 215
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Minute Order from Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, dtd 	March 2, 2005
Character Reference ltr from A_ T_, Account Invoice Analyst, Pepperdine University, 	dtd December 28, 2005 (2 pages)
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period June 16, 2003 to December 4, 	2003
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period March 16, 2005 to April 15, 2005
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period December 21, 2001 to February 	28, 2002
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period July 16, 1999 to June 15, 2000
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period April 9, 1998 to July 15, 1998
Evaluation Record and Counseling Record for period July 16, 1998 to July 15, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19970621 - 19970910	COG
	Active:   USN	19970911 - 20010910	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20011120		Date of Discharge:  20050415

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03 04 26
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  4 (2-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  CS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.3 (4)		Behavior:  3.0 (4)		OTA:  3.29

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Presidential Unit Citation; Navy Unit Commendation; Coast Guard Unit Commendation; Navy “E” Ribbon; Navy Good Conduct Medal (2); Global War Terrorism Service Medal; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (3); NATO Medal (Kosovo); Marksmanship Rifleman Ribbon (M16); Seabee Combat Warfare Specialist

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

050302:	Superior Court State of California, County of Ventura, MINUTE ORDER. The Applicant is identified as the Defendant.

050407:	Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura County letter to Officer in Charge, Personnel Support Detachment Southwest, Port Hueneme.   Subject: Admin Discharge ICO CS2 C_ S_  (Applicant).  Authority is granted to discharge the Applicant with a characterization of General, Separation Code GKQ, RE-4, by reason of misconduct.

050415:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, authority:  MILPERSMAN 1910-142.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.  
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 20050415 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A) 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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of 
governmental affairs.   The Board presumes that the Applicant was properly notified of
his Commanding Officer’s recommendation to administratively discharge him by reason 
of commission of a serious offense.  The Applicant’s issues statement on his DD Form 
293 to the NDRB refers to his appearance before an Administrative Separation Board.  
The separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge with a characterization of 
General, Separation Code GKQ, by reason of misconduct.  The separation code 
GKQ designates that the reason for discharge was the commission of a serious offense, 
and that the servicemember elected to appear, and did  appear, before an administrative 
separation board.  Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by 
nonjudicial, judicial proceedings or civilian conviction; however, the offense must be 
substantiated by a preponderance of evidence.  The statements and documents provided 
by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that 
he should not be held accountable for his action.  Relief denied. 

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Specifically, the Applicant alleges that his discharge was “above the calling of discipline” and that the actions taken by his chain of command were not in his best interest, were suspect and of poor judgment, resulting in his other than honorable discharge.  The available records, supporting documents, and facts contain no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s chain of command or anyone else for that matter in the discharge process.  The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary.  As such, this Board presumed that Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.  Relief denied.

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 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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