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

 ex-ADAN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00722

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 011127.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge I fill was inequitable because it was based on one hardship family situation that had me almost daily commuting from Phila. to Norfolk.  This in turn lead to all the adverse action that occurred.  These isolated incidents occurred in a 6-8 month time frame with no other adverse action in over 16 years of Honorable, 4.0 evaluation type service.  The lost of lifetime pension, medical with 3 yrs to go has and will be a great lost within it self, the humiliation of a less that honorable discharge is daily torment.  If the board can see fit after the review of my navy service to end this nightmare it will be glad appreciated even after my days on this earth is over.

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 		770907 - 810813	HON
		   USN			810814 - 890308	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920709		Date of Discharge:  931123

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  14
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  5 

Education Level:  09			AFQT:  50

Highest Rate:  AD1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.15 (4)	Behavior:  3.25 (4)		OTA:  3.25

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  1

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920709:	Reenlisted at AIMD PAX RIVER, MD for 5 years.

930321:	Retention Warning from [HELMINERON FOURTEEN 9HM-14)]:  Advised of deficiency (Failure to pay just debts, which constitutes a pattern of misconduct, as evident by numerous letters of indebtedness from creditors.  Your failure to resolve indebtedness when substantiated by contractual agreement and/or adjudicated action by civil proceedings may lead to further disciplinary action in the form of non judicial punishment, and/or administrative proceedings for discharge.  Your continued failure to pay just debt is a clear violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, Failure to Pay Just Debts), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

930621:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from HM-14, 0700 930607 until 0700, 930608 [1day], violation of UCMJ Article 92: On or about 930606 dereliction in the performance of duties in that he willfully failed to remain at his recall; violation of UCMJ Article 107: On or about 930608, with intent to deceive, make to LT C___, official statement, to wit: That I was at the safety school on the 7th of June, which statement was totally false, and was then known by the said to be false.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 2 months ($100.00 suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-5 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

930804:	Punishment of reduction in rate to E-5 suspended for 6 months awarded at CO's NJP on 930805 is hereby vacated due to continued misconduct.

930805:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, did on or about 930731, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0800 Duty Section Muster, violation of UCMJ Article 92: (2 Specs), Dereliction of duty.  Spec 1: On or about 930723 failed to remain at his recall; Spec 2: On or about 930731 failed to remain at his recall.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $782.00 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

xx0908:	Retention Warning from [HELMINERON FOURTEEN (HM-14)]:  Advised of deficiency (Due to your violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 and Article 92 which resulted in a non-judicial punishment.  Also due to your continued UA from your appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

931013:	Punishment of reduction in rate to E-4 suspended for 6 months awarded at CO's NJP on 930805 is hereby vacated due to continued misconduct.

931014:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86(2 Specs), Unauthorized absence.  Spec 1: On or about 0700, 931004, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: HM-14, Located at NAS Norfolk, VA, and did remain so absent until 0700, 931005, Spec 2: On or about 0930, 931005, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Safety Office, Located at HM-14, NAS Norfolk, VA and did remain until on or about 0700, 931006.
	Award:  Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

931015:	[HELMINERON (HM-14)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

931015:  	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.

931021:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  

931110:	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 931123 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 issue states that the discharge was inequitable due to family hardship and did not reflect his 16 years of honorable service.  He further states that the character of discharge is an impediment to pension and medical benefits.  The Board found the discharge equitably characterizes the applicant’s last enlistment.  The record shows three NJP’s in the applicant’s last enlistment.  The applicant provided no verifiable documentation to support his issue that a hardship caused his misconduct.  The NDRB has no authority to change a discharge due to the denial of benefits caused by an adverse characterization as requested by the applicant.  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 documentary evidence to demonstrate his positive community service, employment history, and clean police record.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains 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 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 “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