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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CTASA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00915

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060628.  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 20070419.  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.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity – Post service

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Early Childhood Education Enrollment Letter from G_ G_, dtd June 13, 2006
Early Childhood Education Enrollment Letter from J_ B_ G_, dtd June 13, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19940811-  19950302	ELS	
		USNR (DEP)	19951221 - 19951226	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19951227		Date of Discharge:  19980310

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  14  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  CTASN

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):  None

* Not Available

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

951221:	Enlistment waiver approved for DEP discharge from the U.S. Navy for refusal to ship.

971107:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: On or about 971009, was derelict in the performance of duties, failed to obtain permission from chain of command to search division officer records; and failed to obtain permission to search through special security officer safe documents containing privacy act information.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful toward First Class Petty Officer, who was then the execution of his office by displaying improper military bearing and behavior.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: On or about 971107, made a false statement to Commanding Officer of Naval Security Group Activity, Norfolk.
	Award:  Reduction in rate to E-1 (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, and a written reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

971107:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 91, Article 92, Article 92, and Article 107.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

980310:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense, authority: MILPERSMAN 3630600. 

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 19980310 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 presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).

Equity – Post service:  The Applicant submitted 2 letters that prove that she is enrolled in a continuing education program.

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 verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant requests an upgrade in order to use the GI Bill for college.  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 educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.  

The Applicant states that she was told that after six months she could have her discharge upgraded.  There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months.  A former service member has 15 years, from the date of discharge, to petition the Board for consideration of an upgrade.  The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months.  Relief denied.

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 warnings and nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 91, 92, and 107 of the UCMJ.  Violations of UCMJ Articles 91 and 107 are considered serious offenses 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 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 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), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, 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 91 (disrespectful toward superior noncommissioned or petty officer), 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