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

 ex-AMHAR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00142

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021028, 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 20030926.  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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I would like my discharge upgraded and my reentry code to be reviewed for change.  I believe that the charges that I was brought up for NJP were too harsh in comparison with the situation.  I don’t believe that there were fair actions with the punishments made I do not believe that I should have been relieved from my duty and discharged from the military.  My roommate was having a party in my room in the barracks with two guys.  I came home and witnessed those three performing many illegal actions.  I was listed as being involved in the action with no evidence.  The only statements that were made possibly heard my voice in the room around the time these actions occurred.  The other three individuals were also released from the Navy with multiple charges.  I was approached about the situation and  told what I knew at that time.  Later on I talked to my roommate and found out more things she had done.  When I was approached again there was a new story I told that she was doing in my room without me there.  She had done these things all the time and I didn’t turn her in.  That was considered “Disobeying a lawful order”.  Since the story changed as to what all happened in and out of my presences; that charge was “perjury” please reconsider my discharge classification and my reentry code.  Thank you.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) 
One page from Applicant’s service record (2)
Statement from Applicant, dated June 15, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19990323 – 19990419	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19990420		Date of Discharge:  20000320

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19				Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  64

Highest Rate:  AMHAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF				Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000310:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation (both specs violated on 000305), violation of UCMJ Article 131: Perjury on 000306.
	Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AMHAR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000311:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000311:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000607:	Commanding Officer discharged Applicant under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): On 4 March 2000, AR (Applicant) demonstrated a flagrant disregard for Navy rules and regulations that was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  She consciously and knowingly committed the act of perjury and disobeyed a lawful order.  I separated her on 20 March 2000 with a General Under Honorable Conditions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000320 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 the charges were too harsh.  She states she did not commit the illegal acts that occurred in her BEQ room but some one heard her voice in the room while the acts were occurring and thought she was involved.  The Applicant request that her discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reenlistment code be reviewed for change.

The Applicant’s discharge package was not available.  Based on the evidence available in her service record and the assumption of regularity for the missing portion of her discharge package, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of this discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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.  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 can be considered.  Examples of documentation to forward to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate).  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

The NDRB does not have the authority to change reenlistment codes (RE Codes).  The Applicant will have to contact the Board of Correction of Naval Records to address this issue.

She is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service
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.  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.

E.  In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order) and Article 131 (perjury), if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

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