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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-SKSA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00041

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051004.  The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Be able to reenlist.”  The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington, DC at the Washington Navy Yard.  The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060810.  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 a pattern of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Unjust reason For Separation I told the phone operator it was bulls--- my phone was Disconnected got me For Disrespect to a chief Petty Officer/Got my First Class in trouble For sleeping so they just wanted me out.

I want to be able to reenlist my Life was the Military and I loved serving my county.  The reasons For Separation were not just.  I served with pride and received numerous awards while in Service 13 ribbons 10 medals I want to be able to Serve my County again.”

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19911205 – 19920706		COG
	Active:    USN			19920707 – 19951024		HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19951025		Date of Discharge:  19970703

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  10  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  23

Years Contracted:  3 (5 months extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  40

Highest Rate:  SK3

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):  Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy “E” Ribbon (3), Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal (2), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (3), Overseas Service Ribbon, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kawait), 9MM Pistol Expert Ribbon, M-14 Rifle Expert Ribbon.

*Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

951025:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 3 years.

961010:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  Insubordinate conduct towards warrant officer, non-commissioned officer.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements.
	Award:  Forfeiture of ½ months pay per month for 1 month, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970327:	Page 13 counseling and warning.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s Ltr dtd 97 June 13.]

970327:	Forfeiture of pay at NJP on 961010 vacated due to continued misconduct.
	[Extracted from Commanding Officer’s Ltr dtd 97 June 13.]

970418:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 107:
Specification: False official statement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of ½ month pay per month for 2 months (suspended for six months), restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s Ltr dtd 97 June 13.]

970421:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

970422:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

970522:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant did not commit misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions).

970613:	Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Air Facility, Atsugi, Japan, recommended to Officer in Charge, Customer Service Desk, Atsugi, Japan, that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “I totally concur with the findings of the Administrative Board members.  Recommend service member be separated from the naval service with an RE-4 and Separation Code GKA for a pattern of misconduct.”

970627:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970703 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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 (B and C).

The Applicant did not request a discharge characterization change.  Applicable regulations stipulate that a request for review from an Applicant who does not have an Honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an Honorable discharge.

When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A general characterization of service 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.  There is irrefutable evidence that the Applicant’s conduct during his time in the Navy was not honorable.  Indeed, the Applicant’s records contain:
•	Non-judicial punishment proceedings on 19961010 for violation of UCMJ Article 91 Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, petty officer and Article 107 False official statements;
•	Retention warning entry on 19970327; and
•	Non-judicial punishment proceedings on 19970418 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence and Article 107 False official statements.
The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate; therefore relief on this basis is not warranted.

The Applicant requests a Narrative Reason for Separation change to “Be able to reinlist.”  Under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of the Applicant's discharge, the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct was the reason the Applicant was discharged.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  Therefore changing the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.  Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant is advised that there is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits or enhancing employment and educational opportunities.  Additionally, the Board has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into any of the Armed Forces.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  Since these issues do not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief, relief on this basis is not warranted.

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 post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the 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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

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.

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