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

 ex-BMSR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01160

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990830, 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 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 – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My discharge was improper because it was based on one isolated situation after 39 months of service.  [See Navy records for my 1st discharge, which is Honorable.]

2. My discharge was, also, improper because of the fact that I was having family difficulties, for which I was very depressed, while I was homeported out of Mare Island, which is about 4 miles from Rodeo.  My parents have recently separated.  [See document #1 and Navy Records to compare dates and locations.]

3.  The discharge was improper because prior to my reenlistment I was not aware of my parent's difficulties leading to separation, and later divorce.  I was too close to home and I wished I wasn't but it was out of my control.  [See document #1 and Navy Records.]

4.  The discharge was improper, also because my behavior while I was depressed was not the norm and totally out of character. [See documents #2, #3, and #4.]

5.  My discharge was improper because the fact that my immaculate reputation with the law, before [even as a juvenile] and while active duty, was overlooked.  [See documents #5, #6, and #7.]

6.  Moreover, the discharge was improper because of the fact that my mother's life was in great danger, and my presence was crucial to protect her against my father.  [See documents #1 and #8.]

7.  I believe that my discharge was improper because when I talked to my 1st Lieutenant in 2nd Division of Deck Force about my depression and family problems, he assured me that he would arrange professional help for me, but he did not follow through.  [See Navy records.]

Documentation

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

Copy of dissolution of marriage filed February 7, 1985
Copies of performance and developmental evaluation dated November 13, 1996, March 26, 1998, March 30, 1999
Copy of employee attendance record for 1998-1999
Job reference from personnel manager of Wal-Mart
Letter from applicant dated September 27, 1999
Copy of juvenile record search dated September 24, 1999
Copy of Martinez County record search dated September 24, 1999
Copy of request for criminal background check for Solano County Court House  dated August 30, 1999
Copy of records check to Hunt County Clerk's Office undated
Copy of felony criminal indictment records from 9-28-1978 through 8-19-1999 check.
Statement from applicant's mother dated September 23, 1999
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USNR		790621 - 820929	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	781227 - 790620	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  820930		Date of Discharge:  840831

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  28

Highest Rate:  BM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (1)	Behavior:  2.60 (1)		OTA:  2.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NEM, SSDR (2), BER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  78 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

830922:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 4 hours, Unauthorized absence for 4 hours.
	Award:  Reduction to BMSN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

831018:	Applicant to unauthorized absence, 0700, 18Oct83.

831107:	Applicant from unauthorized absence, 0700, 7NOV83 (20 days/surrendered).

831108:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for a period of 21 days.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction for 42 days, reduction to BMSA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

831108:	Retention Warning from USS MAUNA KEA (AE 22):  Advised of deficiency (Involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities to wit: unauthorized absence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

831119:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey restricted men's orders, to wit: missing 4 musters.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

831227:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 27DEC83.

840118:	Applicant declared a deserter.

840222:	Applicant from deserter status, 0630, 22FEB84  (57 days/surrendered).

840306:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 57 days, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship's movement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $250 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to BMSR.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

840707:	Vacated suspended reduction to BMSR awarded at CO's NJP 6MAR84 due to continued misconduct.

840707:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 29JUN84 to 30Jun84 (1 day).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $50 per month for 1 month, restriction for 15 days.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

840720:	USS MAUNA KEA (AE 22) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct- pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities as evidenced by 5 violations of the UCMJ, for which SNM was punished at CO's NJP. [Extracted from CO's message dated 4AUG84.]

840720:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 4AUG84.]

840729:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under Honorable conditions (General) by reason of misconduct – Pattern - frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

840804:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct - Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 840831 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct, Pattern, frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (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, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims he had one isolated situation after 39 months of service.  The applicant’s misconduct lasted ten months.  It involved 78 days unauthorized absence, including desertion for 57 consecutive days UA and missing ship’s movement.  There is no indication in the applicant’s record, nor did the applicant provide any supporting documentation that he attempted to use his chain of command to help resolve his personal problems.  Unauthorized absence/desertion is unacceptable behavior for military personnel.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief is denied.

In the applicant’s issues 2 and 4, the Board determined these issues are without merit.  The applicant claims he was depressed from his family problems and his behavior was out of character.  There is no documentation to support the applicant’s claim.  He violated the UCMJ, was held accountable for his behavior and was justly punished for his actions.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief is denied.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board determined this is a non-decisional issue, requiring no further comment.

In the applicant’s issue 5, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims his immaculate reputation with the law before and while on active duty was overlooked.  The applicant’s reputation with the law is irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of surrounding his discharge.  He was guilty of repeated violations of the UCMJ.  He was issued a retention warning after the second NJP, but failed to change his behavior and conform to the military lifestyle.  His continued misconduct resulted in three additional NJPs, prior to his admin discharge.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 6, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant claims his mother’s life was in danger and his presence was required to protect her.  This is an honorable deed, however, his method of executing this deed was wrong.  Additionally, he repeated this misconduct several times after he was formally counseled and warned of possible administrative separation.  There is no indication, by the documents in his service record, nor did the applicant provide any evidence to show  that he ever attempted to use his chain of command to assist him in resolving his personal issues.  Just leaving on unauthorized absence is not acceptable behavior.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 7, the Board determined this issue is without merit.  The applicant is blaming others for his misconduct, rather than admitting unauthorized absence was/is unacceptable behavior for military personnel.  He is responsible for his actions.  He was held accountable and punished for his misconduct.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 4/84, effective 
25 Apr 84 until 16 Sep 84), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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