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

 ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00702

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990428, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000207.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read:  “3630600” vice “3630650”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because my mental judgement was never discussed during the hearing.  At the time of the incident I was being evaluated by a psych MD and being treated for depression.  Prior to this incidence I had been called as a witness against a JAG officer on a sexual harrasment case and during my hearing the JAG officer (prosocuting) said he would make an example out of me. I had served 3 yrs honorabley and awarded many letters of recognition from my command.
I served my country with pride and honor, I believe I am entitled to a general discharge for my service as a United States Sailor.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Eleven pages from applicant's medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	920321 - 920716	ELS
   USNR (DEP)	930701 - 930907	ELS
   USNR (DEP)	931228 - 940109	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940110		Date of Discharge:  971112

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  82

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.66 (3)	Behavior:  3.80 (2)		OTA:  3.66	4.0 EVALS
Performance:  3.00 (3)	Behavior:  2.66 (3)		OTA:  3.00	5.0 EVALS

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970108:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 8 January 1997 you were in a motor vehicle accident and willfully departed the scene.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  [Date extracted from CO's letter dated 16 October 1997.] 

970506:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Stealing mail, to wit: a first class parcel from American Tobacco Marketing and Research Group containing a package of cigarettes and a bearer check for $10.00.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $600 per month for 1 month, reduction to HN. Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970523:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (personal behavior), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

970915:	Vacated suspended reduction to HN.

970926:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Willful dereliction of duty, to wit: willfully assigned to herself the same leave control number as had been previously assigned to another member of the command (2) willful dereliction of duty, to wit: willfully removed from the leave control log a page reflecting the assignment of a leave control number to herself and replaced it with a page containing no assignement of a leave control number to herself, violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $505 per month for 1 month, reduction to HA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970927:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your violation of UCMJ Article 134 (fleeing the scene of an accident) on 8 January 1997; your NJP conviction of 6 May 1997 for violation of UCMJ Article 134 (stealing mail); and your NJP conviction on 26 September 1997 for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (willful dereliction of duty - 2 specifications) and violation of UCMJ Article 107 (false official statement.

970929:  	Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.  [Date estimated.]

971008:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

971016:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offenses.

971031:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 971112 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

In the applicant’s issue 1 concerning her “mental judgement”, a medical diagnosis, on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief.  When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from her misconduct of record.  In fact, the Board seen no connection between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct which began before his medical condition and continued after his condition was resolved.  Relief is not warranted.

In addition, the Board found that the applicant had several serious offenses, all of which were punishable by trial by court martial.  The Board found the discharge to be equitable, based on the severity of the charges.  

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 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.
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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023