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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00665

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000424, 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 001102.  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

1.  To whom it may concern - I am respectfully requesting an upgrade to "General under Honorable Conditions".  I received an OTH when document 2 at the bottom and what I was led to understand and receive was in fact a "General under Honorable Conditions".  I understand now that back then I was a kid who didn't know what I wanted in life and didn't even have a sense of direction and most of all too im-mature.  I went into the Navy and gave it the best I could.  Unfortunately I had encountered some problems that no-one could help me with, for example my laundry bag not being returned for 2 or 3 weeks; people stealing my close so I had to buy woman’s clothes so I could wear something, which led me to get low performance ratings.  Document 1 shows of a head injury I received on board on the 24 of Nov 90 that needed stitches; also showed I had other problems.  Since then I have been out when back to college, got (married) and been trying to pursue an upgrade respectfully and properly  Thank you for your Time and Consideration In God Always (applicant) Thank you

Documentation

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

Nine pages from applicant's service record

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:  890803		Date of Discharge:  910308

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  06  17
	Inactive:  00  00  18

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  27

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, 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:

890822:	Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

900412:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence for 3 hours and twenty minutes, (2) Unauthorized absence for 10 minutes, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey lawful order.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900919:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty by reporting for watch in a dirty uniform and unshaven on 9Sep90.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, loss of civilian clothes privilege for 90 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900919:	Retention Warning from USS MARVIN SHIELDS (FF 1066):  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 92, Dereliction of duty by reporting for quarterdeck watch in a dirty uniform and unshaven..), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

910125:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty by leaving watch station without being properly relieved on 18Jan91.
	Award: Forfeiture of $375.90 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910126:	USS MARVIN SHIELDS (FF 1066) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO's NJP's on 12Apr90 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (2 specifications) - UA for 3 hours and 20 minutes; UA for 10 minutes; and 92 - Failure to obey lawful order; 19Sep90 for violation of the UCMJ Article 92 - Dereliction of duty; and 25Jan91 for violation of the UCMJ Article 86 - UA from appointed place of duty by leaving watch station without being properly relieved.

910126:  	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.

910127:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding officer's comments (verbatim): SR (applicant) is being discharged because he is a danger to himself, his shipmates, and to the ship itself during at sea operations.  He has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to focus his attention on even simple tasks, and on numerous occasions has hazard the ship by standing improper watches, as a Look-out, Helmsman, and Lee-Helmsman.  Repeated counseling by all levels of the chain of command and three appearances at Captain's Mast have failed to make the slightest impression on SR (applicant) or cause him to modify his behavior.  I can no longer tolerate his presence on board while this ship is conducting combat operations.  Characterization of discharge is General Under Honorable Conditions.

910219:	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 910308 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 first issue the applicant states is that “document 2 at the bottom and I was led to understand and receive was in fact a “General under Honorable Conditions”.”  The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and found that despite the handwritten recommendation by the Commanding Officer for a General discharge.  CNMPC, the discharge authority, directed an Other Than Honorable discharge.  The Board found no impropriety or inequity in this issue.  Relief denied.

The applicant further discussed his immaturity as being a root cause of his misconduct and discharge.  The NDRB found the applicant fully qualified for service and no reason he was not responsible for his actions.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant stated that he received a head injury while on active duty.  The NDRB did not find that to be a reason to mitigate the applicant’s misconduct.  Clearly the applicant was responsible for his actions and offered ample opportunities to correct his deficiencies.  He failed to do so and was appropriately processed for separation due to misconduct.  Relief is not warranted.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  

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 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