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

ex-BTFR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00754

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000523, 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 001214.  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 – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. In 1985 I was stationed aboard the USS CAPPADANO (FF-1093).  While aboard was informed my father's health was deteriorating due to lukemia.  After many failed attempts through the proper channels (including Red Cross) to be discarghed, I felt my only course of action was to keep going AWOL until the Navy finally discharged me.  So I could go home to find a job to help out my family so my father could take time off from work.  Had I not gotten out when I did my father would have passed away while I was still in.  He died 2 months before my original discharge date was to be.  Please take note that I was part of the bombing of Libya in 1985 while in the Meditteranian.  I did not have a bad service record only wanted to get out to be with my dying father.

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)	831230 - 840909	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  840910		Date of Discharge:  861119

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  10
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  48

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (1)	Behavior:  3.20 (1)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, NUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  31 

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850620:	Applicant missed ship's movement.

850702:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his unit on 0700, 31May85 until 1200, 22Jun85 (23 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $347 per month for 2 months, restriction for 23 days, reduction to E-X.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860714:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his unit on 0730, 19Jun86 until 1930, 26Jun86 (7 days/apprehended).
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860722:	Retention Warning from USS CAPODANNO (FF 1093):  Advised of deficiency (Your professional performance reflects lack of attention.  Your professional growth shows lack of motivation.  You have been counseled and awarded EMI and for leaving your assigned work space, which has increased the amount of supervision necessary.  Your unauthorized absence increase the workload on your shipmates and raise serious questions about your reliability.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

861002:	Vacate reduction to FA awarded at CO's NJP dated 14Jul86.

861003:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his unit on 0700, 29Sep86 until 30Sep86.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

861007:	USS CAPODANNO (FF 1093) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

861007:	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.

861008:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  Commanding officers comments (verbatim):  In spite of considerable command attention in the form of EMI, counseling sessions and repeated disciplinary actions, BTFR____(applicant) continues to be an administrative and disciplinary burden to the command.  In addition to the three unauthorized absences for which he has been disciplined, BTFR____(applicant) established a history of tardiness and a habit of leaving his assigned workspace without permission.  He requires close-supervision for most tasks, and his unreliability has increased the workload of his peers.  His record of service is not a creditable one and warrants a discharge under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

861105:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT 
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 861119 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (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).

In response to the applicant’s issue, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review.  There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge.  There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.  The applicant’s record clearly shows numerous instances of unauthorized absences, tardiness and lack of accountability in the workplace.  The Board sympathizes with the applicant’s loss of his father however this event does not excuse the applicant from his pattern of misconduct.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/85, effective 
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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