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

 ex-QMSA, USN
Docket No. ND99-01194

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990909, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed MISSOURI VETERANS COMMISSION as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000522.  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 (verbatim)

1.  I was charged with sleeping on watch after 72 hours on duty off the coast of Cuba.  This charge was correct as I was sleeping, I have no excuse other than I was tired.

2.  I was charged with cheating on my wife, from whom I was separated and in the middle of a divorce.  She accused me of not giving her any money but I had an allotment giving her nearly all my pay.  This charge was unfounded.

3.  I was on anchor watch and a Petty Officer came o the bridge with a little child, his nephew, and said I was not sleeping.  When I could not be found guilty, I was charged with sitting in the Captain's chair.  Everyone sat in the Captain's chair because that was the place that the reports were turned in or reported.

4.  To say I had a pattern of misconduct is over emphasizing my conduct which actually I had only one offense that was correct and that was in 1988 some two years prior to my discharge.

5.  To issue a discharge of this nature for these trivial offenses, seems to be over kill so to speak.  At a time on down sizing, to ruin a persons life seems very unjust just to get rid of him.

6.  The Petty Officer who stated that I was sleeping on watch, was overbearing at all times.

7.  My Captain had the highest punishment rate of any Commander in the 6th Fleet.

8.  Having spent nearly four year in the Navy and paying $1200 into the Education Fund, I request that I be given my benefits back for schooling.               

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	851122 - 860803	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860804		Date of Discharge:  900612

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  10  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  61

Highest Rate:  QMSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (4)	Behavior:  3.10 (4)		OTA:  3.13

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BATTLE"E"RIBBON, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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:

890119:	Retention Warning from [USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)]:  Advised of deficiency (Your record of misconduct due to nonsupport of your dependents continues, an adverse record of minor disciplinary infractions, or worse, will form a pattern of misconduct which cannot be tolerated), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890208:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty on 890114.
	Award:  Bread & water for 3 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900315:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 0700-0945, 900211.
Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 5 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900523:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty on 900523.
Award:  Bread & water for 3 days, forfeiture of $400.00 per month for 1 month, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900530:	USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

900530:  	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.

900531:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

900605:	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 900612 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’s issue 1 is a non-decisional issue.

The applicant states in issue 2 that he “was charged with cheating on my wife.”  The applicant was never charged with cheating on his wife, but rather UA and dereliction of duty.  He was however given a retention warning for non-support of dependents.

In response to the applicant’s issue 4, the Board found that the applicant was properly discharged for pattern of misconduct based on his three offenses and violation of a retention warning.  

In response to the applicant’s issue 5, the applicant states that his offenses were “trivial” and that the discharge was “over kill.”  Unfortunately, the applicant’s offenses were not trivial which is why the CO took him to 3 NJPs and then he was later administratively discharged from the Navy. 

The applicant’s issues 3, 6 and 7 are non-decisional issues.

The applicant was briefed on the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. BILL).  Specifically, he was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. BILL.

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.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days] if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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