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

ex-AOAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00421

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010220, 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 010629.  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.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 11 months of service with no other adverse action.

2.  I would like a General discharge with Honorable Conditions.

3.  I was young and didn't understand everything that was going on.  When I went to captains mass I thought I was getting some extra duty and half pay for some months, not getting put out of the Navy.

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:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880112 - 880124	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880125		Date of Discharge:  890109

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  57/52

Highest Rate:  AOAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.60 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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:

880812:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty on 21Jul88.
	Award: Restriction for 10 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880812:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
881021:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Willfully disobeying a lawful order on 26Sep88, to wit: by going to breakfast when ordered not to.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881203:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128 (2 specs): (1) Assault an AOAN by striking him about the face with a closed fist on 22Nov88, (2) Assault AOAN by striking about the back with a closed fist on 22Nov88, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully communicate to AOC a threat to injure by saying "If you touch me, I'll kill you" on 22Nov88, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty on 1600, 21Nov88 to 0700, 22Nov88.
	Award: Forfeiture of $391 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AOAA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881207:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

881207:	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.

881209:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer's comments (verbatim): In the brief time SNM has been in the naval service, he has demonstrated his inability to get along with his peers.  His personal behavior has not conformed to the standards expected by the naval service.  He increasingly demonstrates an unwillingness to work with others and resorts to violence with little provocation.  His continued presence in the naval service is detrimental to morale and detracts from the mission of this command.  He is contemptuous of military authority.  I therefore strongly recommend that he be discharged from the naval service and that it be characterized as other than honorable.

881217:	CNMPC 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 890109 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:  “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 11 months of service with no other adverse action.”  After careful review of the applicant’s service record, the NDRB found this issue untrue and without merit.  The applicant’s service record shows three NJP’s in 11 months of active service.  The applicant demonstrated a pattern of willful disobedience and was processed for separation after his third NJP.  Relief is denied.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “I would like a General discharge with Honorable Conditions.”  The applicant provided no basis in his issue for relief.  After careful review of the applicant’s service record, the Board found the Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes his service.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “I was young and didn't understand everything that was going on.  When I went to captains mass I thought I was getting some extra duty and half pay for some months, not getting put out of the Navy.”  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his 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.  Relief is denied.

The applicant 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 recommended

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until 
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 "afls10.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