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

 ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00748

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000530, 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 010123.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned an impropriety in the reason assigned for discharge but no inequity in the discharge.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change, but the reason shall change.  The discharge shall state: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630900.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Document one is simply my DD 214, which was weird because even though I have a general discharge I was blamed for having a mispattern of conduct.  I was asked did I want to go home and I said yes both times at CO'S NJP.  I feel half the things that happened are true and half are false.  I never argued that fact, I just took the blamed and gave them what they wanted I decided to give up.  I do not like troubling to come my way but it happens.  I do not bring my fellow shipmates down I always try to stay out of people way and do my job, but it's hard with three or four commands given each day.  I also would like to go back into the navy because that’s all I know how to do.  I got a re-entry code 4, I do not understand why I only had three week to go before I was reserve, and all because I said yes I want to go home I cannot keep my G.I. Bill, or stay in the service or any of my benefits, all gone.  Please review that please.  Document 1/the DAPA program was self voluntary I put myself into that program because I was drinking period and I thought I had a problem.  This accrued on USS HEWITT DD 966 by FC1 B____.  3.  Document 2/Medical wise is not the main issue but I was denied medical and dental checks at the VA hospital on Claremont RD in Atlanta but I was told I had 120 days for all my medical needs to be handled.  Document 2/NJP all the violations that was given to me are all here.  I do except the article 86 and failure to obey an lawful order and provoking speeches and jesters everything else is obsolete because I did not do more than once.  I was out late and came back to the ship put on my uniform and feel asleep I slept through quarters an duty section muster.  

Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Service Related Documents (26pgs)
Letter from Applicant 
Page of Receipts

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  USN 			None
	Inactive: USNR 		None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  951108		Date of Discharge:  990507

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  03  05  07
	Inactive:  00  00  22

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFEM, MUC 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

951201:	Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Seaman Apprenticeship Training Program. 

981201:	Extended active duty period for 7 months.

990121:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of the UCMJ Article 107: False statements.
Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record. 

990408:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Failure to obey an order, violation of UCMJ Article 117: Provoking speeches or gestures.
Award:  Forfeiture of $479.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990412:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 

990412:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. 

990414:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general under 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 990507 with a general under 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 reason for discharge was improperly assigned due to administrative error, but the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).  

After review of the applicant’ service record the NDRB found an administrative error in the reason for discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  Absent from the applicant’s record is a NAVPERS 1070/613 issue and subsequent violation.  Since the applicant was not issued a NAVPERS 1070/613, the board found the discharge did not meet the requirements for Pattern of Misconduct and relief in the reason for discharge is warranted.  The Board noted the applicant had considerable misconduct while on active duty including four violations of the UCMJ that are considered serious offenses (violation of Articles 92, 107, 91 and 117).  Since the serious offenses warrant processing for separation the Board found that relief or a change in the characterization of service is not warranted.

The NDRB found the applicant’s issue non decisional.  The applicant’s service record clearly documents the applicant’s misconduct that included two NJP’s with four serious offenses.  A General discharge accurately characterized the applicant’s service.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant requested a change in RE Code to permit reentry in the service.  The NDRB has no authority to change RE Codes.  The applicant should consult his local recruiter for details regarding possible reenlistment. 

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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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