Author: CAP
Last saved by: joyce.meeks
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND05-00342

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

 ex-MA3, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00342

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041216.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050713.  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.  “Prior to my deployment to Kuwait, I was informed by my sister about my father possibly being missing.  Our family house was sold quickly and my father went on a trip to Brazil and didn’t return.  I had no way to make contact with my father and thought my mother attempted suicide and threatened all the family members with death.

The stress was overwhelming and clouded my judgment, while I was deployed.  During my out  processing, I was finally able to make contact with my father.  My father too was afraid of his situation in Brazil, though he was well.  By the time I received the information about my father it was too late to stay in service.

I would welcome the opportunity to again be allowed back into the military (RE Code adjustment and Honorable Discharge).  Though my action during this personal troubling time might have caused Irreparable damage to my military career.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
E-mail dated January 30, 2003 (2)
Memorandum, performance report on Applicant, dated February 5, 2003 (2)
Certificate of Appreciation from Department of Homeland Security
Certificate of Recognition for dedication and performance dated August 18, 2004
Letter to Applicant from Program Manager, dated September 27, 2003
E-mail, dated November 18, 2004 (3 pages)
E-mail, dated November 19, 2004 (2 pages)
News Article, 13 Arrested in Joint Terrorism Task Force Raid, dated November 18, 2004 (2 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE
Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Inactive: Unknown
	Active:   USMC		Unknown - Unknown		HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  Unknown	Date of Discharge:  20030317

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  03  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  Unknown		Years Contracted:  Unknown

Education Level:  Unknown		AFQT:  Unknown

Highest Rate:  MA2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF*		Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Rifle Sharpshooter Ribbon, Pistol Marksmanship Ribbon, SSDR, OSR, NDSM (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

*No marks were found in service record.
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:

20030317:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20030317 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 and missing elements of the summary of service (D).

Issue 1.  Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  In the absence of a complete discharge package or service record, the Board presumes the Applicant committed a serious offense, was properly notified and processed by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and that a general (under honorable conditions) was an appropriate characterization of his service.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption of regularity through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  The Applicant has submitted no documentation or other evidence to rebut the above presumption that he committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and his service merited a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the Applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

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 Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, 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 502, Propriety.

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

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

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.