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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00673

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000428, 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 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I was entering into.

2.  At my first duty station, I immediately received harassment from some of my shipmates and superiors.  I sought counseling and assistance from the Chaplin and my immediate chain of command and none was forthcoming.

3.  During the Persian Gulf Conflict my father was disabled with Emphysema.  At the end of the conflict I requested a separation so I could return home and assist my family.  I was told there was no way I could separate.

4.  During my term in the Navy, I did provide faithful service as evidenced by the following citation: National Defense Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

5.  Despite certain incidences of harassment and the family emergency for which I was unable to receive assistance, I understand that none of this excuses my misconduct.  However, I do believe these were serious mitigating factors that led to my (Other Than Honorable) discharge.  I ask the board to reconsider the status of my discharge in light of these factors and my faithful service during a time of conflict in the Persian Gulf.
 
Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	910605 - 911001	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  911002		Date of Discharge:  930715

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  27
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17			Years Contracted:  8 

Education Level:  8			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SASM, SSDR 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920928:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority fail to go to appointed place of duty on 920912 and 920917, violation of UCMJ Article 90: Willfully disobeyed a lawful command from LTJG; violation of UCMJ Article 117: Wrongfully use provoking words toward shipmate on 920916.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $392.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

921023:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeyed a lawful order from the Commanding Officer by missing 10 restricted men's muster.
	Award:  Correctional Custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930506:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority absent himself from his unit from 0500 to 0820, 930405, and failed to go to appointed place of duty at 0730, 930406, 0730, 930407, 0730, 930409, and 0730, 930414.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $407.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930519:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully disobeyed a lawful order by wrongfully missing 8 restricted men's musters.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $407.00 per month for 2 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

930511:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

930511:  	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.

930512:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930518:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930601:	Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS INDEPENDENCE to wit: You are directed not to depart the ship for any reason without prior written permission of the proper authority, in accordance with Punitive Restriction Order dated 930506, and order which it was his duty to obey, did on board USS INDEPENDENCE, located at Fremantle, Perth, Western Australia, on or about 930529, willfully disobeyed the same by wrongfully departing the ship while being in a restricted men's status.
	Sentence:  Confinement for 20 days.
	CA (930603) Sentence approved and ordered executed.

930617:	Released from confinement and returned to full duty.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930715 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 first issue states:  “At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I was entering into.”  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “At my first duty station, I immediately received harassment from some of my shipmates and superiors.  I sought counseling and assistance from the Chaplin and my immediate chain of command and none was forthcoming.”  The record is devoid of any evidence, and the applicant failed to provide documentation to support this issue.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “During the Persian Gulf Conflict my father was disabled with Emphysema.  At the end of the conflict I requested a separation so I could return home and assist my family.  I was told there was no way I could separate.”  The record is devoid of evidence to support this issue.  Furthermore, the record shows the applicant was found guilty of various offenses under the UCMJ in four NJP’s and one Summary Court Martial.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states:  “During my term in the Navy, I did provide faithful service as evidenced by the following citation: National Defense Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.”  The NDRB found the positive aspects of the applicant’s service were outweighed by the applicant’s significant pattern of misconduct.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s fifth issue states:  “Despite certain incidences of harassment and the family emergency for which I was unable to receive assistance, I understand that none of this excuses my misconduct.  However, I do believe these were serious mitigating factors that led to my (Other Than Honorable) discharge.  I ask the board to reconsider the status of my discharge in light of these factors and my faithful service during a time of conflict in the Persian Gulf.”  The Board found the applicant’s significant misconduct far outweighs any possible aspects of his positive contributions.  An Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service.  Relief is denied.

The applicant may make a personal appearance before the board up to 15 years from the date of discharge.
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 – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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