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

Docket No. ND03-00869

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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00869

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030424.  The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040401.  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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “On November 19, 1998 I was discharged from the U.S. Navy with a General under Honorable Conditions Discharge.  I am submitting this form in hopes of getting my discharge upgraded to an Honorable one so I may join the Naval Reserves.  My discharge was based on one isolated incident in over 28 months of service but was emphasized by a personal conflict I was going through.  While on deployment I placed a phone call back home and my fiancé informed me that she had been raped.  At this time all I wanted to do was get home.  We were still months from getting back into homeport so I had to deal with this on my own.  I found myself not sleeping or eating.  I was very short with my shipmates and became recluse.  My division had been working roughly 19 hour day so not getting enough sleep eventually took it toll on me.  During late night watch I feel asleep at my post and was sent to Captain’s Mast.  I received 30 days restriction and 15 hours of Extra Military Instruction.  At this point I went to talk to the ship’s Chaplain to see if he could help me at all.  He recommended that I see a local psychiatrist in Bahrain.  The psychiatrist there did not feel that I needed to be released from the Navy.  I pushed the matter with the Chaplain because I thought it was a sure way home.  My Captain at the time; Captain W___, was understanding about the situation but did not have a way to discharge me unless he put I under a derogatory situation.  He based the discharge around the incident of me falling asleep on watch and I was given a general under honorable condition discharge and the narrative reason was misconduct.  I was not thinking about the long term at that time; I just wanted to go home.  It didn’t matter how.  I do not blame the Navy for any of the actions that were taken.  Quite the contrary, the Navy was very good to me and tried to help out any way they could.  I do regret taking the general discharge simply because it means I can no longer enlist into the military.  I miss the camaraderie I had with my shipmates and the genuine experiences you get by being in the Armed Forces.  As you will see by my evaluations and other records I was an exemplary sailor until this incident.  If given the chance I would like to prove I could be that type of sailor again.  Thank you for your time and patience.”

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):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960131 - 960609	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960610		Date of Discharge:  981119

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR(2), NAVY”E”(2), GCA

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:

980903:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: On or about 0500, 980814, was found asleep as forward lookout.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction in rate (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

981001:	Psychological Evaluation indicates Applicant was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder NOS with Antisocial and Borderline Features.  Recommendation: Member is fit for full duty.  He is responsible for his behavior and should be held accountable for his actions.  This individual does manifest a long standing disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity as to interfere with his serving adequately in the Navy.  
 
981026:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.

981026:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

981027:	Commanding Officer advised CHNAVPERS of Applicant’s discharge with a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  SN M____ lacks the potential for further productive naval service.  Per enclosure (2), his psychiatric evaluation indicates he is incapable of serving adequately in the Navy and if kept in the Navy, he is a continuing danger to himself and others.  However, I have based the characterization of his service on the serious offense as indicated in enclosure (3).  This single discreditable incident was of such a serious nature that he put the entire crew of this ship in harms way by sleeping on watch as a lookout.  The ship was in a condition three status, a heighten state of combat readiness due to the existence of real hostile threat.  As such, his discharge will be characterized as General.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981119 with a 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 his discharge was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service.  When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) 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 the award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for commission of a serious offense for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief, is therefore, denied.

The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The following is provided for the edification of the applicant.  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, however, 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 proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  

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 other evidence related to his discharge at that time.  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.  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

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: