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

ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00711

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000511, 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 designate a 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 - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My discharge was after my EAOS was over, which was on May 19, 1992.  I did not sign for an extension nor did I agree to involuntary extension.  Therefore, my enlistment should have been over and I should have been discharged with an Honorable Discharge.

2.  My outstanding performance record throughout my enlistment.

3.  I made some mistakes and used bad judgment for which I am ashamed because I loved my naval career.

Documentation

Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation to be considered by the Board.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880322 - 880519	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880520		Date of Discharge:  920721

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  02  02
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  SH2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.75 (8)	Behavior:  3.69 (9)		OTA:  3.74

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM, SSDR(2), Battle "E" Ribbon, SWASM

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:

910926:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  wrongfully wearing an earring, on NAVSTA Long Beach.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $50 per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911206:	USS PRAIRIE Medical Dept (Alcohol/Drug Abuse Screening):  Identify due to driving under influence (Aug 91).  Drinks gin or rum, beer.  1st drink age 13-14, 1st drunk age 15.  Drinks 12-16 times a month.  
	Assessment:  Alcohol Abuse - psychological dependency.
	Recommendation:  Level III Treatment.

911226:	Naval Hospital Long Beach (TEMADD) for hospitalization for Level III Treatment.  Transferred to USS PRAIRIE on 10 Jan 92.

920201:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from NAVSTA Long Beach for a period of 20 minutes; violation of UCMJ Article 92: failed to obey a lawful order; violation of UCMJ Article 108: damage government property.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $590 per month for 1 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

920202:	Retention Warning from USS PRAIRIE (AD 15):  Advised of deficiency (misconduct or minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by two CO's NJPs within current enlistment), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

920605:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (9 Specs):  unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty; violation of UCMJ Article 90 (2 Specs): disobeyed a lawful order.
Award:  Forfeiture of $400 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, vacated suspended reduction in rate to E-4, and reduction in rate to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

920605:	Punishment of reduction to E-3 suspended at CO's NJP of 5JUN92 vacated this date for continued misconduct by assaulting the Chief Master-At-Arms after his NJP proceeding.

920608:	USS PRAIRIE notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920608:	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.  Applicant did not object to the separation.

920617:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "SHSN (Applicant) is a burden to this command and to the United States Navy.  He has been counseled numerous times regarding his behavior.  He has not regard for authority, rules or regulations.  He has no potential for future useful service.  His conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline within the armed forces.  I most strongly recommend that he be separated from the service, and that the characterization of discharge be under other than honorable conditions."

920626:	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 920721 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 first issue states:  “My discharge was after my EAOS was over, which was on May 19, 1992.  I did not sign for an extension nor did I agree to involuntary extension.  Therefore, my enlistment should have been over and I should have been discharged with an Honorable Discharge.”  The NDRB does not have the authority to rule on issues regarding enlisted contracts.  The applicant is directed to petition the Board of Naval Corrections for relief on this issue.  

The applicant’s second issue states:  “My outstanding performance record throughout my enlistment.”  The NDRB found the applicant’s misconduct as documented in three NJP’s and one vacation of punishment outweighed the positive aspects of his military service.  The Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service.  Relief denied.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “I made some mistakes and used bad judgment for which I am ashamed because I loved my naval career.”  The NDRB found this issue non decisional.  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 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), 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