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

 ex-ET3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00381

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received 20030107.  The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington D.C. area.  Subsequently, the Applicant converted his request to a personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040318.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “I respectfully request an upgrade to my discharge and restoration of my highest attained rank of E-6 because it was based on one isolated incident in 6 years of service with no other adverse action.

This negative event occurred in the last year of a 6 year enlistment.  My first five years were exemplary including a 4 year good conduct medal which in itself would have been worthy of an honorable discharge.

I attained the rank of Electronic Technician First Class (E-6) in under 5 years as a Nuclear Reactor Operator.

My discharge was strictly administrative and was not based on any request of my command.  My command had requested I return to full duty. (Documentation no longer available).

It is my intention should an Honorable Discharge be granted to return to the Naval Sea Cadet Corp, as an adult instructor.  I spent 4 years with them as a young adult which prompted my entry into the United States Navy.

I am currently serving my community as a local government official.  Public service has always been a great part of my life.  I hope to see fit to grant this request.  It has been an embarrassment for me throughout my adult life.” 
.
Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
First Class Petty Officer Authority Letter
Copy of Private Pilots License
Copy of Drivers License
Letter of Recommendation
Copy of Business Card

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	811203 - 820310	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  820311		Date of Discharge:  871221

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    05  09  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  97

Highest Rate:  ET2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (4)	Behavior:  3.75 (4)		OTA:  3.70

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  GCA, BATTLE”E”, SSDR, Rifle Expert Marksman, Pistol Expert Marksman, ESWS

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

870522:	General Court Martial
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 121,.
	Specification 1:  Onboard NAVSTA, NORVA between JAN 86 and AUG 86, wrongfully appropriate property of the U.S. Government of a value of $819.70.
	Findings:  to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 2 months, reduction to E-4.
	CA 870824:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

870608:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870714:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

870908:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

870918:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  

871008:	ASN&MRA directed separation with an Other Than Honorable discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
 
871024:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than 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 19871221 under other than 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 his discharge was based on one isolated incident with no other infractions.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of a General Court Martial in which the relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  Relief, is therefore, denied.

Concerning the restoration of pay grade to E-6, the NDRB has no authority to change the Applicant’s pay grade, as requested.  Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records.  

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.  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.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 "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