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

 ex-STGSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00438

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000215, 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.  The NDRB asked the applicant for additional documentation to support his post service conduct, but he failed to respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001121.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  During my tour in the Navy I was having marriage problems which ended in divorce.  I was on medical hold waiting on a medical board.  I was also under a heavy financial burden.  I was top of my class in all schools.  That I attended and was never in trouble prior to my marriage problems.  Request my discharge be up graded from UCH to Honorable.

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910621 - 910624	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910625		Date of Discharge:  931203

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  05  09
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  92

Highest Rate:  STGSA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.47 (3)	Behavior:  2.47 (3)		OTA:  2.93

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930827:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (9 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence on 0900-0930, 6Jul93, (2) Unauthorized absence 0930-1000, 8Jul93, (3) Unauthorized absence 0730-0738 14Jul93, (4) Unauthorized absence 0700-0710, 22Jul93, (5) Unauthorized absence 0700-0830, 27Jul93, (6) Unauthorized absence 0630-0812, 28Jul93, (7) Unauthorized absence 0900-1615, 2Aug93, (8) Unauthorized absence 0800-0925, 11Aug93, (9) Unauthorized absence 0730-0900, 17Aug93.
	Award:  Reduction to STGSR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930930:	Retention Warning from Fleet ASW Training Center, Atlantic: Advised of deficiency (Absence from place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

931022:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0900-1210, 15Oct93.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 1 month, written reprimand.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

931027:	Fleet ASW Training Center, Atlantic notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by NJP of 27Aug93 for 9 specifications of unauthorized absence, NJP of 22Oct93 for unauthorized absence.

931027:  	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.

931101:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): STGSR (applicant) has been a constant administrative burden on this command.  Countless man hours have been spent counseling him in a futile effort to make him a productive sailor.  His frequent minor violations of the UCMJ and poor attitude are convincing evidence of his inability to adapt to military environment and his lack of potential for future useful naval service.  Strongly recommend separation with a characterization of General, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

931112:	BUPERS 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 931203 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 states:  “During my tour in the Navy I was having marriage problems which ended in divorce.  I was on medical hold waiting on a medical board.  I was also under a heavy financial burden.  I was top of my class in all schools.  That I attended and was never in trouble prior to my marriage problems.  Request my discharge be up graded from UCH to Honorable.”  The applicant provided no post service documentation to support his issue.  Furthermore, the NDRB requested post service documentation from the applicant on 000915, and the applicant failed to respond.  Relief is not warranted.

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 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), 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