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

ex-RMSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00877

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000706, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Dallas, TX.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010209.  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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  For over six years now it has been my opinion that the Other-than-Honorable discharge (in-lieu-of a trial by courts martial) I received, and my reduction in rank from E-7 to E-3, were inequitable to say the least, and definitely not consistent with the debt my supportive wife and three young children were owed.  Instead of a letter of appreciation for their many years of effort, single-parenting, and loyalty, they were handed a suicidal, depressed, and bankrupt husband and father at the young age of 30.

My discharge was based solely on a brief two week period in my life, a time that I am not proud of, but a time that I can not take full responsibility for either.  Several other people assisted with my rapid decline and demoralization.

2.  My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because my isolated period of bad use of better judgment was being fueled by financial stress, job related stress (intense scrutiny) following a formal grievance I had filed depression, and a recently diagnosed mental disorder.  See Documents 2 and 3.

3.  My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because my mental state of mind was such that I could no longer make logical and proper decisions.  I should have been offered much more psychological help than was rendered.

4.  My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because I was reduced to a mental basket case and had no choice but to accept the discharge in lieu of a trial by courts martial.  That decision was the only choice I had available to end my suffering (emotional).

Documentation

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

Statement from applicant dated June 4, 2000
Copy of NAVMED 6100/5 dated October 7, 1993
Letter to applicant from Assistance Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) dated August 31, 1994

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			840404 - 880331	HON
		   USN			880401 - 920114	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	830616 - 840403	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920115		Date of Discharge:  931230

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  28			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  72

Highest Rate:  RM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.60 (3)	Behavior:  3.53 (3)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  NAM

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NEM, AFEM, NUC, SSDR with Bronze Star, BER, GCM (2), HSM, NDSM, MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

930916:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: With intent to deceive alter and submit a copy of a public record on or about the first week of May 1993, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on or about 18Aug93.
	Award: Punitive letter of reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.  Complete letter found in service record.

930920:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (You have received nonjudicial punishment.  The offenses involved altering a copy of a public record, which i in violation of Article 134 and false official statement, which is in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ.  If you continue to engage in misconduct, your service record may reflect a pattern of misconduct as described in MILPERSMAN 3630600.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

931227:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse, ashore off duty.  Random urinalysis 931018.  Clinical psychologist found applicant dependent and recommend separate via VA hospital.  Commanding officer recommended separate via VA hospital.  Comments: Service member enlisted in the Navy 04 Jan 84.  SNM has 09 years and 08 months of service.  EOAS 14 JUL 98.  As reflected by SNM's service record and evaluations SNM has shown to be an average sailor.  SNM has no potential for further naval service.  SNM is being discharged IAW OPNAVINST 5350.4B and MILPERSMAN 3610260 for drug abuse.

931230:	Applicant offered and declined treatment at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital.

Separation in lieu of trial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 931230 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The applicant’s first issue states:  “For over six years now it has been my opinion that the Other-than-Honorable discharge (in-lieu-of a trial by courts martial) I received, and my reduction in rank from E-7 to E-3, were inequitable to say the least, and definitely not consistent with the debt my supportive wife and three young children were owed.  Instead of a letter of appreciation for their many years of effort, single-parenting, and loyalty, they were handed a suicidal, depressed, and bankrupt husband and father at the young age of 30.
My discharge was based solely on a brief two week period in my life, a time that I am not proud of, but a time that I can not take full responsibility for either.  Several other people assisted with my rapid decline and demoralization.”  The NDRB found that the discharge was equitable based on the applicant’s misconduct in his enlistment.  There is nothing in the record nor did the applicant provide documentation to support the issue that the applicant was not responsible for his actions.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because my isolated period of bad use of better judgment was being fueled by financial stress, job related stress (intense scrutiny) following a formal grievance I had filed depression, and a recently diagnosed mental disorder.  See Documents 2 and 3.”  There is nothing in the record that supports this issue.  There is nothing in the record that indicates the applicant was not responsible for his actions.  The Board found no procedural error in the applicant’s discharge.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because my mental state of mind was such that I could no longer make logical and proper decisions.  I should have been offered much more psychological help than was rendered.”  There is nothing in the record that supports this issue.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states:  “My other-than-honorable discharge was improper because I was reduced to a mental basket case and had no choice but to accept the discharge in lieu of a trial by courts martial.  That decision was the only choice I had available to end my suffering (emotional).”  There is nothing in the record that shows the applicant was incompetent and therefore unable to make a rational decision in accepting an other than honorable discharge in lieu of trial by court martial.  Relief is denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge.  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 failed to provide any documentation for post service consideration.  

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 5, effective 
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT‑MARTIAL. 

B.  A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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