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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01049

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010809, 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 020307.  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

1.  Primary concern is that I (applicant) at the time of wavering my rights to appeal was not mentally competent due to my mental state and diagnosis of narcissistic which is termed an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

2.  Due to the vehicle accident and being institutionalized in the military mental ward prevented me (applicant) from making the wise decision in not wavering my rights to appeal my separation.  With only three months of enlistment expiration remaining my decision was not in my best interest.

3.  My undesirable discharge was improper because due to my previous evaluation score of a 3.8 dropping to a 3.2 after my institutionalization in the military ward.  Clearly convey my deserving of an honorable discharge with the full benefits.

Documentation

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

Copy of applicant's Sam's Club membership card
Copy of applicant's Louisiana drivers license
Copy of applicant's social security card
Copy of applicant's birth certificate
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Copy of applicant's high school diploma dated June 1, 1993
Copy of privacy act authorization form to Congressman W_ J_  J_ dated November 22, 1999 (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	930910 - 930926	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930927		Date of Discharge:  950719

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  23
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.40 (2)	Behavior:  3.20 (2)		OTA:  3.40

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, AFEM, NER, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

950408:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect towards a superior petty officer. [Extracted from Commanding officer's message dated 21Jun95.]  No further information found in service record.

950408:	Retention Warning from USS TRENTON:  Advised of deficiency (Stating he understood TRENTON'S shipboard policy.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  [Extracted from Commanding officer's message dated 21Jun95]. 

950411:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Misbehavior of lookout, violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches and gestures.  [Extracted from Commanding officer's message dated 21Jun95.]  No further information found in service record.

950609:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Simple assault with intent to do bodily harm.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, bread and water for 3 days, reduction to SA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950613:	USS TRENTON notified applicant 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 as evidenced by all your punishments under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in your current enlistment.

950613:	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.

950621:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to a commission of a serious military offense.

950711:	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 950719 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).

Issues 1 and 2.  The Board found no indication in the applicant’s service records or other documentation provided that the applicant was not mentally competent to make decisions regarding his administrative separation.  On 950613, during the applicant’s separation physical, a competent medical authority certified that the applicant was qualified for separation.  The applicant’s commanding officer also stated that a medical evaluation was not required for the proper processing of the applicant’s administrative separation. The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The applicant’s performance evaluation averages do not guarantee him an honorable discharge. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on three occasions and an adverse counseling entry on another occasion.  The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.   Relief denied.

The NDRB has no authority to make or recommend compensatory payments due to the characterization of service as requested and this issue does not provide a basis for relief. 
The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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