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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00040

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to reenlistment eligible RE-1.  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 010329.  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: GENERAL UNDER 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

1.  This is a request to have the review board evaluate my service record.  My goal is to change discharge to honorable with a reenlistment code of RE-1. I would like to go back on active duty again.  I would like you to take into account that I have matured over the years and have a completely different perspective on life and my personal obligations and responsibilities.  I am currently married and have the responsibility of maintaining a household with five children.  I am also employed full-time with Shasta Nissan-Subaru as a salesman.  As a young sailor I had some problems with authority which I have overcome.  I am not trying to convince the review board that I didn't do anything, but rather make an appeal that I have grown considerably since those early days in the USN.  As I look back on service, I realize that the USN was the best career I had and regret very much the poor choices I made while serving.  If allowed to serve again, I will make better choices and I am certain, the USN will be proud of my accomplishments.  In considering your decision, I would request that the board review thoroughly those accomplishments and contributions I made to the USN and not just focus on unauthorized absences.  For example, while serving aboard the USS Hoist, ARS 40, I received a letter of commendation from the commanding officer for outstanding performance of duties.  This award was presented to me twice from 1984 to 1986.  At no time did any of the officers or NCOs appointed over me have to counsel me or admonish me on my performance of duty.  My performance evaluations were always excellent - I performed very well while on duty.  Please look favorably upon my request.  Please also consider my window of opportunity since I am now 35 years old. .

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			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  830902		Date of Discharge:  860625

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  09  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  66

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.20 (3)	Behavior:  3.00 (4)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  M14 Rifle Expert, SSDR, Battle"E"Award 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  5 

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

GENERAL UNDER 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:

831216:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 2300 831201 to 0230 831202, violation of UCMJ Article 92: (2 Specs), Spec 1: Failure to obey lawful order by not possessing a liberty card, Spec 2: Failure to obey lawful order by wearing civilian clothes without proper authorization.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $334.00 per month for 2 months, reduction in rate (suspended for 3 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

840402:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from his organization from 0630 840314 to1510 840319 [5 days/S]; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Art 1136, U.S. Regulations, dtd 730226, by possessing dangerous weapons onboard NTC, GLAKES, to wit: 1 wooden nun-chucka (Chinese fighting sticks) and 1 red handled "butterfly" knife; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Did on or about 840123 until 840221 wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $334.00 per month for 2 months, restricted to SSC NTC GLAKES IL for 45 days, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

840614:	Retention Warning from [USS HOIST (ARS 40)]:  Advised of deficiency (Your consistent disobeyance of lawful orders, Naval Regulations, and violations of UCMJ while attached to Service School Command, NTC Great Lakes IL to wit: 1. NJP on 831219 for two counts of failure to obey lawful orders.  2.  NJP on 840404 for violation of UCMJ Article 86, 92, 134 and U.S. Navy Regulations Article 1136.  The specific charges were for an extended period of unauthorized absence, possession of dangerous weapons and wrongful use of a control substance, to wit: marijuana), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

850724:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award:  Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

850816:	Retention Warning from [USS HOIST (ARS 40)]:  Advised of deficiency (My consistent disobeyance of lawful order, Naval Regulations, and violations of UCMJ while attached to USS HOIST (ARS 40) to wit: 1. NJP on 850724 for failure to obey a lawful order.  2.  NJP on 850816 for unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

850819:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence
	Award:  Forfeiture of $361.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months) Extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860129:	NAVDRUGLAB NORFOLK VA urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for THC.

860228:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of controlled substance.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860310:	[USS HOIST (ARS 40)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of pattern of misconduct and drug abuse.

860314:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

860331:	NAVDRUGLAB NORFOLK VA urinalysis report indicates applicant urine sample submitted on 860318 tested negative.

860406:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions.

860407:	NAVDRUGLAB NORFOLK VA urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for THC.

860519:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of pattern of misconduct and drug abuse.

860619:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge general under 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 860625 general under 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).

The NDRB considered the applicant’s issue (letter) that describes his service and current activities.  The Board noted the applicant’s service record demonstrates the applicant’s unwillingness to conform to the standards of Naval Service from the time he enlisted to the time he was separated.  The applicant was found guilty at NJP on five occasions for various misdeeds.  The Board found the applicant’s discharge accurately described his service.  Relief is denied.

While the Board may consider post service conduct, ref (D), the applicant failed to provide any documentation for consideration.  Relief is not warranted. 

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received no later than June 25, 2001.

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