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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-AWAN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00107

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051017.  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 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 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:

“I was discharged due to a pattern of misconduct for receiving NJP twice in the same enlistment.  However, I was discharged one month and eight days prior to my scheduled EAOS.  Aside from two immature and youthful mistakes, my service included numerous awards and accomplishments.  I feel that my active duty service was honorable, and would like my discharge to reflect that opinion.”

Applicant’s Remarks:  (Taken from the DD Form 293): Since my separation from active duty, I have continued my commitment to excellence and achieving my goals.  I received my Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisiana in May of 2004, and I am currently a medical school student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine in Duluth, GA.  My intention is to apply for the Navy’s Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and to serve as a physician in the Navy.  This application is the beginning of that process. 

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant dtd August 15, 2005
Official Transcript from University of Louisiana (3 pgs)
Service Related Documents (14 pgs)
Academic Private Loan Credit Application (2 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19931029 - 19940619	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19940620		Date of Discharge:  19980511

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  22  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  none
	Confinement:		  none

Age at Entry:  19

Years contracted:  4 (12-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  70

Highest Rate:  AW3

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):  National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, NATO Medal, Naval Aircrew Designation; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

* Not Available

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

970620:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
Award:  Forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

980511:	DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of pattern of misconduct, authority: MILPERSMAN 3630600. 

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.
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 19980511 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 requests an upgrade in his discharge characterization to honorable. The Applicant contends that despite his youthful mistakes, his service was honorable and he garnered many awards for his accomplishments. The Applicant further implies that his separation one month and eight days prior to his EAOS was improper. 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 NDRB found that the Applicant’s service record is missing the administrative discharge package and elements of the summary of service. In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board evoked the presumption of regularity.  Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant met one of the criteria for pattern of misconduct (two or more NJP’s in an enlistment), violated a retention warning, that the Applicant was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively process the Applicant for separation, that the Applicant was afforded all rights, which he elected at notification, and proper authority directed the Applicant’s discharge.  The Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant states, it is his intention to apply for the Navy’s Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and to serve as a physician in the Navy.  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 requests an upgrade to honorable based on post service equity. Since his separation from active duty, he has received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisiana and is currently a medical school student at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine in Duluth, GA. 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 a 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 verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient 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 additional evidence related to this 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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 86 (absence without leave in excess of 30 days).

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