Author: CAP
Last saved by: shirley.robertson
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND04-01261

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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND04-01261

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20040803.  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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

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 of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/HARDSHIP, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “WOULD LIKE THE DISCHARGE I WAS GIVEN CHANGED TO AN HONORABLE DUE TO THE HARDSHIP OF MY DAUGHTERS SEVERE HEART DEFECTS SO THAT I MAY RE-ENTER THE ARMED FORCES.  DAUGHTERS HEART CONDITIONS WERE SO SEVERE THAT SHE PASSED AWAY TWELVE DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE EVEN AFTER RELOCATING HERE TO HOUSTON CHILDRENS WHERE THEY SPECIALIZED IN HER PARTICULAR DEFECTS.”

Documentation

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

Copy of Applicant’s daughter’s Certificate of Death
Applicant’s DD Form 214
USMEPCOM Processing/Enlistee Record
Applicant’s letter to the Board dtd May 27, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	970221 - 970226	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970227		Date of Discharge:  981030

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  04 (Doesn’t exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

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

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1)	Behavior:  1.0 (1)		OTA:  2.0

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  M-16 Expert Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  45

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/HARDSHIP, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-110 (formerly 3620210).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970927:	Unauthorized absence from NATTC Pensacola, FL.

971112:	Surrendered onboard NATTC Pensacola, FL (45 days).

980104:	Unauthorized absence from NATTC Pensacola, FL.

980105:	Surrendered onboard NATTC Pensacola, FL.

980218:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs):  Unauthorized Absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $463.00 pay per month for 2 months, 30 days correctional custody, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

980218:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (NJP on 18FEB94 for VUCMJ Art 86, UA), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

981026:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Absent without leave on 8, 21, 23, & 25 October 1998.
Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981029:	CO, USS BUNKER HILL (CG 52), approved Applicant’s request for discharge by reason of hardship.

981030:	Administrative Remarks:  Applicant awarded a General (Under Honorable conditions) characterization of service due to poor military performance and misconduct, evidenced by two Captain’s Masts in a nine month period to include six specifications of Unauthorized absences.  Applicant acknowledged by his signature.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981030 with a general (under honorable conditions) due to hardship (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.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A General discharge 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 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for 6 violations of Articles 86 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted. 

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  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.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

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.  The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-110 (Previously 3620210), Separation by Reason of Convenience of the Government – Hardship.

B.  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.

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 V, Para 503, Equity.

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

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.