Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND02-00198

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

 ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00198

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020107, 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 020731.  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: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Dear Council and Board Members:  I would like for you to consider and or possibly upgrade my discharge from General to Honorable.  During the period I was discharged I had successfully completed an enlistment term of 4 years and was awarded a citation for Good Conduct on October 28, 1992.  Upon completing an additional four years I came across serious physical and emotional depression.  As a young sailor who had a family to support, and to go trough the issue of loosing that family basically turned me to emotional disaster.  I did not seek nor did I recognize this problem until I was well out of the military mostly because I refused to be perceived as weak.  Well needless to say my inability to recognize along with my lack of knowledge of clinical depression caused me to end a career that I was very proud of.  This day and on I still maintain close relationships with my military counterparts active and non active.  Over the years I am asked if I could change anything about my military career what would it be, and my reply is always my maturity.  I feel if I would have focused more on my emotional needs and less on my ego I would still be serving my country in a diligent and honorable way. Since separating from the Navy I have made significant moved in the civilian society.  Very active in my community in and around the city of Memphis as Well as Naval Support Activity Mid South for I maintain active ties with several Navy and DOD Personnel, participating in several Military and DOD functions held in the area.  Based on my service record and the significant progress I have made in my life I would like for the board to review case and if possible upgrade my discharge for this is the only part of my life that is missing and that is to say that I served my country Honorably  Sincerely,

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			870928 - 930701	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	870916 - 870927	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930702		Date of Discharge:  960321

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  47

Highest Rate:  PN3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.45 (4)	Behavior:  3.20 (4)		OTA:  3.45

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM, OSR, NUC, AFEM, SSDR (4), SASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

931001:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty on 16Sep93, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation on 16Sep93.
	Award: Forfeiture $200.00 per month for 1 month, reduction to PNSN.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.

941013:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties on 0830, 5Sep94, to wit: willfully failed to control the issuance of the Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty Form (DD 214).
	Award: Written reprimand, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to PNSN.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950507:	Competency for duty evaluation:  Returned to full duty.  Recommend no driving or operation of heavy machinery or power tools, etc. today.

950608:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Absent from appointed place of duty 0730-1230, 7May95, to wit: USS HOLLAND (AS 32), (2) Absent from appointed place of duty at 0715 and 0830, 18May95, violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespectful to a commissioned officer on 4May95, to wit: raising his voice and arguing with the Lt, violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (3 specs): (1) False official statement on 6Mar95, to wit: a Recommendation for Advancement Worksheet, in that PN3 had altered his performance average from 3.62 to 3.85 and wrongfully altered his award total from 3 to 5, (2) False official statement on 6Mar95, to wit: the Navy wide E-5 Advancement Examination, he entered a false performance average of 3.85 vice a true average of 3.62 and he entered a false award total of 5 vice a true award total of 3, which (3) False official statement on 3Nov93, to wit: An Enlisted Performance Evaluation that stated that he had "earned associates degree in Social Science from Lemoyne-Owen University", violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Willfully damage military property of the United States, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Incapacitated for duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $571.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to PNSN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950610:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

950615:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

950703:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a pattern of misconduct and serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

Date		Commanding Officer recommended discharge general (under honorable 
Illegible:	conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious 
offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  

960319:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 960321 with a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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).

Issue 1:  The Applicant states he had successfully completed a prior enlistment honorably.  The Naval Discharge Review Board is only authorized to examine the enlistment during which the discharge was awarded.  Prior honorable service is not grounds for relief.  Relief not warranted.

Issue 2:  The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of family problems that turned him into an "emotional disaster."  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 agrees that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  The Board found the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 2:  The Applicant states he is active in civilian society and in his community.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant failed to provide any post-service documentation.

The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge.  The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal 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 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  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.  

C.  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.

D.  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 "afls10.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	 

e.

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A6750/A9219/A9321/A9323/A9221