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

ex-CECA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00009

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 010301.  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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  Non-judicial punishments are common and not serious enough to warrant punishment for life. ASWAUTH [A92.02]

2.  My conduct and ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were mostly pretty good ASWAUTH [A92.02]

3.  My ability to serve was illustrated by the fact that the majority of my enlisted performance evaluation reports states I was progressing towards promotion.  ASWAUTH [A92.12 4]

4.  I had an alcohol and drug problem, my behavior was a result of it's use I was not given Drug and Alcohol Treatment only told to go to AA meetings that is not treatment.  ASWAUTH [A93.18]

Thank you for considering my discharge upgrade

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Seven pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	891031 - 900430	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  900501		Date of Discharge:  920813

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  24

Highest Rate:  CECN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.20 (2)	Behavior:  3.10 (2)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BER, NDSM, JMU

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

910703:	Applicant unauthorized absence 0600-0750, 3Jul91.

910919:	Applicant unauthorized absence 0645-2100, 19Sep91.

910927:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 0645, 17Sep91, to wit: NMCB FOUR morning quarters, (2) Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0645, 17Sep91, to wit: NMCB FOUR morning quarters.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911107:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Disregard for punctuality and lack of regard for authority as evidenced by violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence (2 specs).), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
911125:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout, was found sleeping upon his post.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to CECA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 23Jul92.]

920717:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0730, 26Apr92, to wit: NMCB FOUR duty section muster, (2) Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 0730, 13Jun92, to wit: NMCB FOUR duty section muster, (3) Fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 1300, 19Jun92, to wit: NMCB FOUR mortar training, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Miss movement of NMCB FOUR mortar platoon on 0330, 30Jun92.
	Award: Forfeiture of $440 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to CECA.  Forfeiture, restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920722:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

920722:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

920723:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

920811:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920813 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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:  “Non-judicial punishments are common and not serious enough to warrant punishment for life.”  The NDRB found the applicant’s documented misconduct warranted separation with a characterization of service as Other Than Honorable.  The Board does not find the intent of the discharge is “punishment for life”, but rather describes the applicant’s service.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “My conduct and ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were mostly pretty good.”  The Board found the applicant’s positive contributions were outweighed by his misconduct.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “My ability to serve was illustrated by the fact that the majority of my enlisted performance evaluation reports states I was progressing towards promotion.”  The Board agrees the applicant had potential to serve.  The Board found that the applicant failed to conform to the standards of conduct required by members of the armed forces.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states:  “I had an alcohol and drug problem, my behavior was a result of it's use I was not given Drug and Alcohol Treatment only told to go to AA meetings that is not treatment.”  The NDRB found nothing in the record to support this issue.  Relief is denied.  

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 – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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