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

 ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01133

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990824, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling board closed to (blank).  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000427.  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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I (applicant) was a good shipmate and wanted to finish my time in the military and probably was going to re enlist if things wouldn't have happen like they did.  I am still a family man.  I go to church I work and this is part of my past I would like to clear up.  Thank you

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant dated March 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880405 - 880411	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880412		Date of Discharge:  910412

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  00  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12 1/2		AFQT:  39

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.25 (4)	Behavior:  3.15 (4)		OTA:  3.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

880907:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (disciplinary infractions which were dismissed at Officer in Charge Mast, notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

881007:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 0500, 6Sep88 to 0100, 7Sep88, (2) Go from appointed place of duty, (3) Unauthorized absence 2200, 1Oct88 to 0020, 2Oct88, violation of UCMJ Article 92 (4 specs): (1) Failed to obey a lawful order on 19Sep88, (2) Failed to obey a lawful order on 26Sep88, (3 and 4) Failed to obey a lawful order on 2Oct88.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881026:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 1630, 7Oct88 to 1630, 11Oct88 (4 days/surrendered), (2) Unauthorized absence from 2200, 22Oct88 to 0100, 23Oct88, violation of UCMJ Article 91: Failure to obey a lawful order from a Chief Petty Officer on 7Oct88, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Breaking restriction on 7Oct88.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890519:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Failure to obey a lawful order, (2) Dereliction in the performance of duty.
	Award:  Correctional custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900329:	Retention Warning from USS SHASTA (AE-33): Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence and failure to obey regulations.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

900330:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 10 days, reduction to FA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

901202:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 2Dec90.

901204:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1730, 4Dec90 (2 days/surrendered).

901214:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, withdrawal of recommendation of advancement.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910109:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910110:	USS SHASTA (AE 33) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct during current enlistment.

910110:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

910218:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

910320:	CNMPC 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 910412 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).

The applicant provided no documentation to support his post service issue.  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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), 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