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

 ex-ADAN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00830

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000620, 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 010125.  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 (verbatim)

1.  In December 1988 while I was in the Navy, stationed in Lemoore, CA.  I met a civilian be the name of L__ G. F____ he told me he was a commercial artist and asked me if I would work with him cleaning brushes.  I agreed and started working with him.  I told him I was able to get a home loan through the Navy and asked him if he would like to buy a house at 248 East D Street.  At the beginning the mortgage was getting paid and everything was good.  Then L___G____. stopped sending in mortgage.  The I realized I was being taken advantage of.  The Navy couldn't discharge me because of financial problems, so they railroaded me to Captain's Mast for taking a hat off a work bench.  So I was discharge March 10, 1990.  I have two Honorable discharges updated.  It is an O.T.H. with an RE-4 code.

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			820402 - 870706	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	811216 - 820401	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  870707		Date of Discharge:  900323

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  31			Years Contracted:  6 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  AD3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.04 (5)	Behavior:  3.24 (5)		OTA:  3.12

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NEM, SSDR, GCA 

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:

870707:	Reenlisted at ATKRON TWO TWO for 6 years.

890302:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (appearance), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

890313:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

890322:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (appearance and job), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

890329:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (appearance), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

890403:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (appearance), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

890410:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Stole a hat of a value of about $5.25 belonging to another onboard NASL on or about 890323.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

890818:	Retention Warning from [Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA]:  Advised of deficiency (Your failure to pay just financial obligations in a proper and timely manner pursuant to MILPERMAN 6210140 as evidenced by: Letter of Indebtedness from Chrysler Credit dtd 890801, Letter of Indebtedness from Sears Car & Trunk Rental dtd 890728, and Statement of Financial Status to the Commanding Officer of 890818.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

890922:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891002:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891005:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891011:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891013:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891017:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

891219:	Naval Air Station, Lemoore notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by a set pattern of failure to pay just debts.

900102:  	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.

900220:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a set pattern of failure to pay just debts.  Commanding officer’s comments:   This command has expended many man hours counselling Petty Officer E____ about his financial obligations.  Even after being ordered to correspond with all creditors and establish a plan of restitution, this command continues to receive weekly complaints about this man’s failure to pay his debts.  Petty Officer Emerson is irresponsible, immature and lacks even initiative required of an airman.  I feel he is definitely NOT a desirable asset to the naval service and therefore recommend that he be discharged under other than Honorable conditions.

900316:	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 900323 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).

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that “the Navy couldn't discharge me because of financial problems, so they railroaded me to Captain's Mast for taking a hat off a work bench.”  The applicant was in fact discharged for misconduct due to a set pattern of failure to pay just debts.  The applicant received 11 counselings and a retention warning concerning his indebtedness, appearance and job performance.  The applicant was over $99,300 in debt at the time the command began processing him for administrative separation.  In addition to the applicant’s serious indebtedness problems, the applicant was brought to NJP for larceny.  Although the applicant may trivialize stealing a hat, the Commanding Officer obviously thought this was of concern and brought the applicant to CO’s NJP on 890410, which was in his absolute purview to do.  This larceny was not the reason the applicant was discharged, but it was taken into consideration when the applicant’s enlistment was characterized under other than honorable conditions.  The Board finds the applicant’s service is accurately characterized as having been served under other than honorable conditions.  Relief denied.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D).  Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  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.

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