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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AKAA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00686

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060426.  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 20070216.  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 reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain Under Honorable Conditions (General) 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 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period, should read:  “910318-910319.”  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

The Applicant did not submit any decisional issues for the Board to consider.  

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19881031 - 19881218	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19881219		Date of Discharge:  19910503

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  04  15  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  1 day
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  11				AFQT:  67

Highest Rate:  AKAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (3) 		Behavior:  3.5 (3)		OTA:  3.06

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal.

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

910304:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $422.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record [Extracted from CO’s letter 19910401].

910304:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

910307:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

910320:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from CO’s letter 19910401].

910326:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by a vote of 3 to 1, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and by unanimous vote  that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a under honorable conditions (general).

910401:	Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron 132,  recommended discharge with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

910403:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP on 910320 for VUCMJ Article 86-Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0730, 910318 until Approx. 0730, 910319.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910422:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct [serious offense].

	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 19910503 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 did not submit any decisional issues for the Board to consider.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. 

The NDRB did note a technical impropriety in the Applicant’s separation processing.  The record indicates that the Applicant received a retention warning subsequent to the recommendation by his Administrative Discharge Board,  and the Commanding Officer’s recommendation,  for his separation with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  Nevertheless, the NDRB is convinced that this procedural error was not prejudicial to the Applicant and therefore affords him no relief.  There is little doubt to the NDRB that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made and thus relief based upon this error is not warranted.  

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 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (UA) and 121 (Larceny) of the UCMJ.  Violation of UCMJ Article 121 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a special or general court martial.  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 NDRB has no authority to provide additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago.  The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of Naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, 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, Article 121 (Larceny).

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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