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

ex-FR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00407

Applicant’s Request 

The application for discharge review, received 000211, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region.  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 000907.  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.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600” vice “MILPERSMAN 3630100”, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read:  “Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct” vice “MISCONDUCT {PATTERN}”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. I, was stationed on the U.S.S. FORRESTAL CV59.  I was returning from leave, the later part of 1990, when I found out my brother A_ was very ill.  He had contracted Hepatitis and was hospitalized.  I immediately went to htl D_ F_, the first person in my chain of command, and asked if I could go back on leave, as I still had days' accumulated, and given my brothers situation.  The response I was given was flat out no and do not ask again.  I then went to the next person in the chain of command and I was told the same thing.  In panic, feeling I had no other choice, I went home to my brother.  I came back to the ship in 15 days after I knew my brother would be all right.

Up until this point, my service record was in good standing but I knew my actions would change that.  I felt I was ready and willing to take responsibility for my actions.  I received a grade decrease and was put on restriction for 15 days.  What I was not ready for was the treatment I got from the people in my division and ht1 F_.  Late workdays as well as late watches left little time for sleep and I was treated like an outcast within my division.  I did not handle the circumstances as well as I should have, instead I let it all get to me and I believe this is why it did not stop.

After a few months under these circumstances I felt as if I could not take it anymore.  Being young, I did not know that I should have gone to a higher chain in command with my issues.  I felt I would end up worse off than I already was.  I decided I had to find a way out.  I left on March 12, 1991 and returned on the 29th day and mustered for duty.  I was scared so once again I left the next morning for another 15 days.  I realized that I had no other choice but to face my punishment and myself.

On April 25, 1991 I received a summery court martial.  When asked why I told them the reasons listed above.  They told me I had a choice, because my records were good up to that point, I could stay in the Navy or get out with an "Other than Honorable" discharge.  I regret my next words to this day, I asked to get out of the navy.

In 1997 1 was told there was a chance that I could reenlist into the Naval Reserves and get an "Honorable Discharge" after I had served my time.  I jumped at the chance because I knew I could make right what I did so wrong years ago and at the same time, right myself in the Navy's eyes.  I was denied for reasons unknown to me.  Given the chance I would still jump at it, I would do anything to make right the wrong I did.

Thank you for your time,

Documentation

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

Letter from applicant dated December 22, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890912		Date of Discharge:  910524

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  05
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  25

Highest Rate:  FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.20 (2)	Behavior:  2.10 (2)		OTA:  2.70

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  49

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:

901206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1900, 2Nov90 to 2330, 15Dec90 (13 days/surrendered).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to FR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

901206:	Retention Warning from USS FORRESTAL (CV 59): Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from 2Nov90 to 15Nov90.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
910110:	Reduction to FR awarded at CO's NJP is set aside.

910209:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on shipmate on 8Feb91.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910423:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs).
	Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 12Mar91 to 11Apr91.
	Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 12Apr91 to 18Apr91.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87.
	Specification: Miss ship's movement on 12Apr91.
	Finding: to Charge I and II and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  CHL for 30 days, reduction to FR.
	CA action 910423: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for that portion of the punishment adjudging confinement in excess of 11 days is suspended for 6 months.

910423:	USS FORRESTAL (CV 59) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ during your current enlistment.

910423:  	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.

910427:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
 
910502:	Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

910502:	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 910524 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).

In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant's chain of command.  The applicant had no excuse for the numerous periods of unauthorized absence in his record.

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.  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) and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  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 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 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