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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00572

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060320.  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 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).”  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:  Isolated incident.
Equity:  Post-service conduct.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 7)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Letter from Applicant, undated 
Reference ltr from J_ S. T_, Ph.D., dtd March 8, 2006
Letter of Recommendation from J_ R. P_, dtd February 10, 2006
Letter of Recommendation from S_ H. P_, Ph.D., undated
Leave and Earning Statement from W_ for period ending December 30, 2005
Letter from K_ D. G_, dtd October 15, 2005
Writer’s Digest Writing Competition Award, undated
Excerpts from Applicant’s Medical and Service Records (51 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010525 - 20011021	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20011022		Date of Discharge:  20050610

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  07  19  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  20

Years Contracted:  4 (25-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  93

Highest Rate:  PN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.0 (3) 		Behavior:  3.3 (3)			OTA:  3.61

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal; Navy Unit Commendation; Navy “E” Ribbon; Navy Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon; Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

050527:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior Commissioned Officer.  Specifications 1-4:  Behave with disrespect to (ENS F_/ENS Z_/ENS N_/ENS P_, respectively) by wrongfully sending her an email containing disrespectful comments to wit:  “I just wanted to tell you that you look sexy and great, no BS.  No strings attached fun.”
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation.  Specification:  Unlawfully using a government computer/account to access his personal online email account and wrongfully sending unofficial and disrespectful emails to ENS F_/ENS Z_/ENS N_/ENS P.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Indecent language.  Specifications 1-4:  Indecent language, to wit, in writing communicate to (ENS F_/ENS Z_/ENS N_/ENS P, respectively) certain indecent language via email, to wit: “I just wanted to tell you that you look sexy and great, no BS.  No strings attached fun.”
	Award:  Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

050527:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.

050527:	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.

050602:	Commanding Officer, USS CHOSIN (CG 65), directed the Applicant's general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20050610 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 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 contends that his discharge is inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  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.  An under other than honorable conditions or 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 89, 92 and 134 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s violations 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.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant implies that his discharge is inequitable due to his post-service conduct and achievements.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  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 letters from his professors, proof of employment and an award for literary achievement as documentation of post-service accomplishments.  The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  For example, the Applicant could have produced an academic transcript, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not 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.  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 11, effective 
26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-142, 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 89, disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, Article 92, failure to obey order/regulation or Article 134, indecent language.

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