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

 ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00284

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000810.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  I feel that my discharge was improper because it was based on an isolated incident.  The original reason for discharge was parenthood.  At the time I was a single parent and my son was ill, I was technically U/A but I didn't go anywhere.  I also called in to the ship & tried to explain what my child had pneumonia & bronchiolosis which was very serious.  My point is I put in $1,200 & a little under 3 years into the service.  I need & want my G.I. Bill so that I can attend college and / or business/medical assist school.  So I urge you to take consideration what my reason were at the time.  I have a family now, two children & a husband & they deserve a mother and a wife who is well educated & a well rounded individual.  The G.I. Bill is something I earned so please I would be most grateful to you if you upgrade my discharge to honorable.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2).
Marriage Certificate (2).

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940802 - 940808	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940809		Date of Discharge:  970616

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  10  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.50 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (2)		OTA:  2.52

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970506:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from unit 970423-970429[6days], violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Ship's Movement on or about 970429 through design.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days (suspended for 3 months), reduction to E-2 (suspended for 3 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

970509:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE].

970509:  	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE].

970512:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE].  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  SN___(applicant) received non-judicial punishment on 6 May 1997 for a serious offense against the UCMJ.  After absenting herself from the command for 6 days, SN___(applicant) intentionally missed ship’s movement for a 6 month deployment.  This command relies on Sailors such as SN___(applicant) to make movement to accomplish our mission.  Any other policy undermines readiness.  Accordingly, I have separated SN___(applicant) locally with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970617 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident".  The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record.  No such leniency exists in the military.  The applicant provided no documentation that her son was seriously ill at the time of her ship’s deployment.  The applicant is responsible for her actions and must accept the consequences of her misdeeds.  The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

Concerning the G.I. Bill, the applicant would need not only an Honorable discharge but also 36 months of active service to receive benefits.  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy 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. 

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  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, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 87, for missing ship’s movement through design, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 "afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023