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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00550

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060314.  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 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 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 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 - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity:  Discharge characterization too severe.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214  (Member 1)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010718 - 20020626	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20020627		Date of Discharge:  20040610

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  13  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  7 days  (Per DD Form 214)
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  75

Highest Rate:  AN

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):  National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

* Not Available

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: 
030731:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.  [Extracted from DD 214.]

030804:	Applicant from unauthorized absence.  [Extracted from DD 214.]

030806:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  False or unauthorized pass offenses.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $670.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2   No indication of appeal in the record.

030827:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (VUCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence on or about 030530, until on or about 030602 and VUCMJ, Article 134: False or unauthorized Pass Offense), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

040428:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:   Specification: Absent himself from his place of duty on or about 0445, 040329.  Violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  Specification:  Insubordinate conduct toward a First Class Petty Officer by disobeying an order. 	Award:  3 days confinement on bread and water.  No indication of appeal in the record.

040513:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to a commission of a serious.

040513:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

040515:	Commanding Officer, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73), directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “He has been given numerous chances to turn himself around during his naval career and had failed to do so.  AA L_ (Applicant)’s conduct shows that he is unable or willing to comply with Navy rules and regulations.”

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 20040610 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 contends that his discharge is inequitable and that his offenses did not merit a general discharge.  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 Applicant’s service was marred by a retention warning and nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 91 and 134 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s violations of Articles 91 and 134 of the UCMJ are serious offenses.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Additionally, for the edification of the Applicant, his administrative discharge is not considered punitive in nature.  Relief is not warranted.

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 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.  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.  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 91, insubordinate conduct or Article 134, false or unauthorized pass.

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