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

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00883

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990618, 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 a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000323.  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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.	I believe that my command unfairly took action against me after writing a chit for request of separation for hardship purposes.  My command stated that it was denied.  Then the command stated I falsified a pt record vital signs.  I thought this was unjust sending me outside my base to be tried at a different command for false accusations.  I went to mast for this.  I was temporarily reassigned to a different command for 30 days.  I was perfect there.  Under recommendations from the LCPO, LPO, and CO to my old command they wanted me to stay.  My old command denied their request.  I was sent back to my command.  I was assigned to janitorial services and treated unfairly.  Consistently discriminated against.  I had received a speeding ticket in North Carolina and requested to appear in court.  I showed them the wrong citation on accident.  Again was sent back to mast being set up on charges unbenounced to me.  The charges were not true, but the Capt. Believed the SLPO and I was discharged under other than honorable for misconduct.  I believe I was treated unfairly and there was a major conflict of personalities between myself and the SLPO.
2.	I feel that I was unjustly accused of Gun Decking the vital signs of a Senior Chief at Norfolk Naval Shipyard Branch Medical Clinic.  Before being questioned or having a proper inquiry performed,  I was written up and charged with Article 92 and 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Senior Chief’s vital signs were never retaken to sustain my claim of innocence.  I do believe that this was inappropriate action on the part of my Senior Personal, each Corpsman deserves the right to defend themselves when accused of and inappropriate action.
3.	After serving thirty (30) days extra duty due to the Gun Decking charge I returned to Norfolk Naval Shipyard Branch Medical clinic where I was singled out from other corpsmen and tasked to do work that would not normally be done by Corpsman.  These tasks included but were not limited to picking weeds scraping gum  off of the outside sidewalks and cleaning the parking lot of cigarette butts and trash.  These tasks would normally be done by the cleaning and yard maintenance workers.  I believe that that the Senior Enlisted Personnel did this to further punish me for the unjust Gun Decking charge and to make an “example” of me.  This is inappropriate behavior by Senior Personnel there is no reason why a fellow Corpsman should be discriminated against in this manner or punished twice for he same discrepancy.  
4.	I requested one (1) day of special liberty to accompany my fiancée to a court date regarding a traffic violation.  The command requested a copy of the moving violation ticket to prove the need for liberty.  The violation ticket was faxed to the command; unfortunately, it was the wrong moving violation ticket.  My wife had received two (2) moving violation tickets in one week and the second ticket was faxed to the command.  Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information.  I was not given a chance to produce the appropriate citation nor was I given a chance to explain the situation.  I was immediately written up on Articles 92 and 107 of the Universal Code of Military Justice and discharged from the Navy under other than honorable conditions.
5.	I believe that since being in the civilian world, that I have become a productive citizen.  I am currently a Firefighter Flight Paramedic at a nuclear power plant.  I think that in the years since the Navy, I have proven myself worthy of an upgrade in discharge to general under honorable conditions.  The Navy did teach me honor, commitment and courage as promised.  I believe that with this upgrade in discharge, it would help me in becoming a more productive citizen in the community.  It would allow me to work as a Firefighter Flight Paramedic for a Fire Dept.
6.	Upon enlisting in the Navy, I was lead to believe that the Hospital Corpsmen due get to go to sea in the capacity of SAR Corpsmen.  While in Corps school I inquired in how I could go about getting that type of training and which duty station would best suit me for this type of training.  After completion of “A” school training I was sent to NNYS BMC.  While there I found out that I was lead to the wrong command and that there was no such training available to Corpsmen for SAR at sea.  I believe that was an obvious lack of personal training deficiency in that fact that the Corps school Career Counselor had no idea that I was looking for a paramedical position on a helicopter for air sea rescue.  I needed to go to NATOPS in Pensacola, FL or to a command that had an air base.  I believe that the Navy did not fulfill its standard in guiding me in the right direction for a long lasting career.  I think that the Navy needs to look into this situation, to prevent this kind of mistake from happening again in the future to other shipmates.  I was a graduate with distinction in my class from Corps school.  I had a dream that I would be promoted soon that year to 3rd class Petty Officer and getting medals pinned upon my chest.  I was looking forward to the training that the Corps school upon arrival promised me at my next command.  This turned out to be false and totally misleading.  Being that if I was sent to the proper command to start with, I would still be in the Navy enjoying a great career.  I think this definitely would have made a big difference in the outcome of my enlistment obligation in the US Armed Forces.
. 
Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214.
        Letter dated 990913

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	950718 - 951211	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951212		Date of Discharge:  961121

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (ONE YEAR EXTENSION)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  HN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior: NMA		OTA:  NMA0.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960806:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Dereliction of duty, violation of UCMJ Article 107: Making a false official entry on an official document.
	Award:  Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HA (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

961022:	CO, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth vacates suspended Reduction in Rate due to continued misconduct.

 961022:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107:  False Official Statement.
	Award:  Reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

961029:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

961029:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. 

Discharge package is incomplete.  

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961121 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

1.	The NDRB found no evidence in the record to substantiate the applicant’s first issue.  Relief not warranted.
2.	The NDRB found no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s second issue.  There is no evidence of an appeal by the applicant in either of his NJP’s.  Relief denied.
3.	The NDRB found no documentary evidence to substantiate the applicant’s third issue.  The record is devoid of documentation that supports this claim.  Relief denied.
4.	The NDRB found no evidence to substantiate the fourth issue.  There is no record of appeal in the record and the applicant provided no documentary evidence to support this issue.  Relief not warranted.
5.	The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.
6.	The NDRB found no promise or other evidence to suggest that the applicant was promised duty as a SAR Corpsman.  Relief denied.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 Street SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023