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

ex-PN2, USN
Docket No. ND00-00080

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991019, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 000803.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to ALLTEL dated July 12, 1999
Copy of Certificate of Achievement dated June 17, 1999
Letter from General Manager, Holiday Inn dated May 23, 1997
Letter from President, Boykin Management Company dated June 12, 1997
Letter from law firm dated August 19, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			881025 - 920730	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880415 - 881024	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920731		Date of Discharge:  960405

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  08  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  22			Years Contracted:  2 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  59

Highest Rate:  PN2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (4)	Behavior:  3.85 (4)		OTA:  4.00	4.0 evals
Performance:  3.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.43	5.0 evals

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BER (2), KLM, NDSM, SASM with 3 Bronze Stars, NUC, JMU, SSDE (2), NAM (2), NATO, GCM (2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940317:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 11Mar94 you were stopped  by the St. Marys Police Department for failure to drive within a single lane.  You were also given a Blood Alcohol Breath Test by an intoximeter in which you registered a Blood Alcohol Count of .09 percent, and were placed under arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) - first offense.  When the police officer was attempting to complete the necessary paperwork, you became belligerent and refused to provide the required information.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
940322:	CAAC screening: Recommend Level I prevent program.

940407:	Civil conviction: Municipal Court of St. Marys, GA for violation of driving under the influence on 11Mar94.
	Sentence: Fined $445, attend Alcohol Driver Education Course (Level I-NADSAP) and complete by 5Aug94.  Send certificate of school attendance to Dept of Public Safety.

950215:	Violation of probation.

950728:	CAAC screening: Tentatively recommended that he attend a Level II outpatient treatment program, be evaluated by the medical officer for alcohol dependency.

950802:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Alcohol abuse, 15Jul95, civilian police.  CAAC recommended Level II treatment.  Physician and clinical psychologist found applicant not dependent and recommended Level II treatment.
 
950804:	Civilian conviction: Municipal Court of St. Marys, GA for violation of driving with suspended driver's license, driving under the influence and speeding on 15Jul95.
	Sentence: Fine $1525.00, jail for 10 days, 1 year probation, 40 hours community service.

950926:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Civil conviction for DUI in March 1994 and July 1995.  Additionally, you were driving with a suspended license.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
951117:	United States District Court Violation Notice for driving while license is suspended.

960220:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, civilian conviction, and pattern of misconduct.

960221:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

960228:	Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities on charges of violation of probation, failure to report and pay court ordered fines and fees and complete special conditions.

960303:	Civil conviction for violation of violating probation.
	Sentence: Pay $60.00 contempt, fees and fines payable, report to judge on payment plan and pay $60.00 contempt by 8Mar96.  Served 5 days in jail. 

960319:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, civilian convictions, and pattern of misconduct that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

960408:	Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to civilian conviction, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): I concur with the findings and recommendation of the Administrative Board to administratively separate PN2 (applicant) with a General (under honorable conditions) discharge.  PN2 (applicant) received all available counseling and assistance from both his command and support services at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay.  His performance while at work, as clearly documented in his service record, was outstanding, and is the reason an Other Than Honorable characterization of service was not sought.  He failed to accept responsibility and accountability for his actions off-duty, and this led to a detrimental effect of good order and discipline within the detachment.  Under the provisions of reference (a), I discharged PN2 (applicant) on 5 April 1996.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  The applicant has provided documentation of a verifiable employment record, however, the applicant’s efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  Therefore no relief will be granted at this time.  The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at "afls14.jag.af.mil".

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
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023