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

Docket No. ND05-01156

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01156

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050706.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 20051215.  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 and reason for discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“Under current standards, I would not received the type of discharge I did.  Also, my ability to serve was impaired because of both marital and child care problems.  Do note that I have been a good citizen since my discharge.  Please consider upgrading to an honorable discharge.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293.)

“I believe at that time I was young and immature and I have since then matured and know better.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19971027 - 19971117	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19971118		Date of Discharge:  19991105

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  19
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:	None
	Confinement:			None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  31

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*				Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Commendation

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

990924:	Letter from Dollar Financial Group, Inc. concerning checks cashed by Applicant which have since been returned for account closed.  Check(s) amount: $235.00 and service fee of $60.00.

991006:	Applicant’s statement:  Applicant admitted to the Commanding Officer, USS STUMP (DD 978), that she had written dishonest checks.

991008:	NJP.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 991021.]

991014:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the by reason of commission of a serious offense.  Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible is general (under honorable conditions).

991021:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

991021:	Commanding Officer, USS STUMP (DD 978) directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense - (check, worthless, making and uttering-by dishonorably failing to maintain funds). Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Seaman A_(Applicant)’s blatant disregard for honor, one of the Navy’s core values has lead to her administrative separation.  As admitted in her statement, SN A_(Applicant) was fully aware she did not have the money to cover the checks and made a conscious decision to dishonorably write them.  She violated the UCMJ Article 134 by dishonorably making and uttering worthless checks.  SN A_(Applicant) also made a conscious decision not to seek assistance from her chain of command.  She has been counseled repeatedly and was fully aware that her chain of command would provide any assistance available.  SN A_(Applicant) has been unable and unwilling to uphold Navy core values.  She has been separated from the Naval Service by reason of Misconduct:Commission of a Serious Offense, with characterization of discharge as general under honorable conditions.”

Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19991105 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (C and D).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

The Applicant contends that her discharge merits clemency because under current standards she would not have received the same type of discharge.  The Board reviews an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review indicates that an Applicant’s punishment was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline of the Naval service, relief may be in order.  Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  Writing dishonest checks is a serious offense that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service.  By unanimous vote, the NDRB concluded that the award of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for the Applicant’s misconduct is not inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  The NDRB unanimously concluded that under current regulations, the Applicant’s discharge would have likely been the same as was issued.  Relief denied.

The Applicant contends her disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by marital and child care problems.  The Applicant further contends her discharge was inequitable because of her youth and immaturity at the time of service.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that many members of the Navy endure hardships similar to those of the Applicant and at a relatively young age.  It must further be noted that the vast majority of those members do not commit misconduct as a result of their problems.  Despite their youth and the hardships they face, these sailors are still able to serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

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 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 post-service 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 her 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.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, check, worthless, making and uttering – by dishonorably failing to maintain funds.

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.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.

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