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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00729

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060512.  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 20070223.  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 characterization 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 errors on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12c, Net Active Duty This Period, should read, “02 06 19,” Block 24, Character of Service, should read, “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS),” and 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 – In service Performance

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Email message, dtd January 21, 2004 (2 pgs)
Letter from T.E. D_, Congressional Liaison Office, dtd March 5, 2004 (2 pages)
Letter from R_ M. G_, Member of Congress, dtd January 21, 2004
Letter from S_ Y. H_, Congressional District Aide, dtd January 22, 2004
Letter from R_ M. G_, Member of Congress, dtd March 19, 2004
Letter of Commendation
Honor Graduate Certificate from Core Division Engineering Systems School Command, dtd November 5, 2001
Father’s Medical Record (91 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010629 - 20010730	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010731		Date of Discharge:  20040218

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  06  19
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  28 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  45

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.5 (2) 		Behavior:  2.5 (2)		OTA:  2.67 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Meritorious Unit Commendation (2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

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: 

030408:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 specifications) Failure to obey orders or regulations.
Spec 1: Did on or about 2040, 030317, wrongfully being locked in the Repair 5 AFT SCBA Locker with HT2 E_, a member of the opposite gender.
Spec 2: Did on or about 0200, 030404, wrongfully being in Auxillary Machinery Room #2 Escape Trunk, 1-32-1, with HT2 E_, a member of the opposite gender.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, to abstain from any contact with HT2 E_, did on or about 0200, 030404, willfully disobeyed the same.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $678.45 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days (15 days suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

030409:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (in that you were in violation of UCMJ Article (s) 92 (2 specifications) disobeying a lawful order or regulation and 90 willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

030926:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (failure to maintain an up-to-date Family Care Plan.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

031202:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (failure to provide sufficient childcare support of your minor child and failure to maintain an executable Family Care Plan certificate.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

040218:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False statement, did on or about 040208 request for parenthood separation.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $715.70 pay per month for 1 month, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record. 

040218:	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.

040218:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

040220:	Commanding Officer directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040218 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

The Applicant requests upgrade to the characterization of her 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 3 retention warnings and two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 90 (willful disobedience), 92 (failure to obey orders), and 107 (false official statements) of the UCMJ.  Violations of UCMJ Articles 90, 92, and 107 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized at courts martial.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends her disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by personal problems.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  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), 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, Articles 90 (willful disobedience), 92 (failure to obey orders), and 107 (false official statements).

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 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