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

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-01035

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040616.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE-1.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by a civilian counsel.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041222.  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 and reason for 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

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Request change to honorable and RE code error to RE-1, Want to Re enlist to serve the Country.  Request RE code to RE to reenlist as wrongfully discharged with error Code was told could re enlist, also reserves”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 1) (2 copies)
Letter from Applicant to Mrs. R_, dated October 12, 2004
Letter of recommendation from HTCM (AW/SW) L_ M_, dated November 15, 2000
Letter of formal inquiry into Equal Opportunity Complaint Case, submitted by LCDR J_ R_ W_, undated.
Notification, Review and Follow-up, dated September 19, 2000
Complaint Process form, dated July 17, 2000
American Online email message, dated November 21, 2000 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990629 - 990706	COG
	Active:   None	

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990707		Date of Discharge:  010105

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  29
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  33			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  16			AFQT:  57

Highest Rate:  PNSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.67 (3)	Behavior:  2.33 (3)		OTA:  2.45

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:

000808:	Applicant filed a grievance and EO report against a YNC.
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents.]
	
Undated:	Formal Inquiry into Equal Opportunity complaint case of PNSN R_ B_ (Applicant) against YNC (AW/SW) G_ M_:  After review, it is believed Applicant has some basis for charges of harassment and discrimination against YNC (AW/SW) G_ M_.  The witnesses directly involved with the case and spouse of PNSN B_ (Applicant) could corroborate PNSN B_ (Applicant) allegations, witness indirectly involved were able to present some evidence implying discrimination and harassment to some extent.  LCDR J_ R_ W_, feels a reassignment would be extremely beneficial for him, and would also allow him the opportunity to properly care for his children with his spouse in Great Lakes.  Personal records of both PNSN B_ (Applicant) and his spouse weren’t made available to me as per my request reason given they could not be found as command was getting ready for deployment.
Recommendation:  PNSN B_ (Applicant) seems to be a intelligent, well groomed and well mannered member and would be an asset to the Navy.
	[Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents]

000821:	Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for period 00MAR01 to 00JUL15 states:  PNSN B_’s conduct has been well below standards.  He has been counseled on numerous occasions regarding his argumentative nature towards supervisors as well as peers.

010105:	Applicant's discharge with general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense per MILPERSMAN 1910-142. [Extracted from Applicant’s DD Form-214]

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010105 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).   

Issue 1:  The Applicant has provided no evidence to support his claim that his discharge was carried out contrary to Navy regulations and therefore does not refute the presumption of regularity of government affairs.  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 commission of a serious offense.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

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 30, dated 7 Nov 00, effective 30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

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