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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00261

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010103, 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 Atlanta, GA.  The applicant did not designate a 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.  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 010601.  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.  To Board, I can't in all honesty say my discharge was not suitably issued at the time.  However because of mistakes in my younger years while serving in the Navy, it has become virtually impossible to achieve a position in my chosen career, law enforcement.  Post certification cannot be obtained with any discharge less than a General Under Honorable conditions.  In an effort to secure a stable future for myself and my family, I ask that the Board please consider and grant my request.  I am deeply sorry for my actions in the past.  If at all possible I would like to reconsidered for duty in the Naval Reserves.  I am a man of different character than during my time of service.  A more mature and more focused man.  Thank You (Applicant)

Documentation

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

Character Reference ltr from Sgt. K. M_ ,dated Nov 16, 2000
Character Reference ltr from G_ S_, Morris Brown College, dtd Nov 16, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880518 - 880524	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880525		Date of Discharge:  910711

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  01  17 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.4 (3)	Behavior:  2.93 (3)		OTA:  2.6

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR(2), AFEM, NDSM, SWASM (w/Bronze Star) 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  18

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:

900221:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from 2120 30 DEC89 to 0600, 1JAN90 (2 days).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $405 per month for 1 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900221:	Retention Warning from USS AMERICA (CV 66):  Advised of deficiency (misconduct as evidenced by your non-judicial punishment on 21 Feb 90, for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, UA from 30 Dec 89 to 1 Jan 90), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

901109:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from 90SEP04 to 90SEP11 (7 days); from 0530 to 0700 90SEP19; from 0555 to 1830, 90OCT02; 
violation of UCMJ Article 91: willfully disobey a lawful order from a CPO on 90OCT02;
violation of UCMJ Article 234: wrongfully possession of an extra liberty/security pass on 90OCT13.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $300 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910223:	Summary Court Martial
Charge I:  violation of UCMJ, Article 108:  negligently destroy a AN/PRC-56 transceiver helmet of a value of about $5,850.00, military property of the United States.
Sentence:  Forfeiture of $501 per month for 1 month, 3 days confinement on bread and water, reduction to E-1.  
CA 910205:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

910514:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  unauthorized absence from 0700, 91MAY18 to 0630, 91MAY20 and from 91MAY29 to 91JUN04.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $376 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910618:	CO, USS AMERICA (CV 66) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.

910618:	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.  Applicant did not object to the separation.

910625:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  "AR (Applicant) continued misconduct warrants separation.  His presence is detrimental to morale and discipline on board AMERICA.  AR (Applicant) has no potential for further useful military service.  I strongly recommend that AR (Applicant) be discharged immediately under other than honorable conditions.

910701:	BUPERS 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 910711 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his youth and immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  In addition, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow him to obtain better employment.  Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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, is considered.  The applicant provided two character references as documentation of his post-service.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Relief denied.

 

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.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 108, for destruction of military property, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-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