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

 ex-DCFN, USN
Docket No. ND01-01075

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010815, 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 020328.  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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1.  My discharge was inequitable because it was based on two isolated incident in 8 years of service. The first I went to CAPTAIN MAST was I used a shipmate calling card twice.  And before we went to CAPTAIN MAST, had paid my shipmate for the twenty dollar calls.  The calls was less than that but I deeply apologized to my shipmate and gave her ten dollars extra for causing her incontinence.  My chain of command from my commander to my division Chief had me put on report.  My shipmate even told the Captain at CAPTAIN MAST the she wasn't pushing the issue and that I had paid her back.  I was reduced in rank and give 30 days restriction. Now my family was suffering so the second time I went to CAPTAIN MAST, I went for writing bad checks because my wife wasn’t working and they reduce me in rank (for what I believe in my heart was for nothing).  While I was in the military I received two good conducts and two honorable discharge.  At the time I went to the board to see what kind of discharge I was going to receive, a medical discharge was pending as well and when they gave me the General Under Honorable Conditions that really put me and my family deep in a financial bind.  It has been really hard trying to get a good paying job with the type of discharge I have.  I would greatly appreciate if the BOARD over turn my discharge to a honorable because I really do deserve it.  Thank you.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 		880817 - 920813	HON
		   USN			920814 - 960523	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880815 - 880816	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  960524		Date of Discharge:  971114

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  21
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  28			Years Contracted:  2

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  25

Highest Rate:  DC3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.16

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960913:	Applicant ordered to abide by the Military Protective Order.
970109:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Intent to defraud LCI International about 20-31Oct96.
	Award: Restriction for 30 days, reduction to DCFN.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970114:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (You were found guilty at CO's NJP on 9Jan97 of violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, wrongfully using the phone card of another sailor without permission and was awarded reduction in rate to E-3 and 30 days restriction.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

970814:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 123a (17 specs): Uttering worthless checks for a total of $2,245.00.
	Award: Forfeiture of $505 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to DCFA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970904:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment on 9 January 1997 and 14 August 1997 and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment on 9 January 1997 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (intent to defraud), and nonjudicial punishment on 14 August 1997 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 123a (17 specifications of uttering worthless checks), offenses which if tried by court-martial could have resulted in a punitive discharge.

970904:	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

971009:	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 and commission of a serious, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

971028:	Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Counsel for the Respondent submitted a letter of deficiency alleging either the appearance of impropriety or actual impropriety.  I have reviewed the Administrative Board proceedings, the letter of deficiency, and the statement made by YNCS N_ and I have concluded that no impropriety occurred.  DCFN (applicant's) inability to properly manage his personal affairs has made him a liability to the naval service.  He continues to be an administrative burden and has no potential for further productive military service.  I concur with the Board's findings and recommend separation with a characterization as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

971030:	Chief of Naval Education and Training directed the applicant's discharge general (under 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 971114 general (under 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).

Issue 1 describes the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge and explains matters of mitigation for his offenses.  After careful review of the record, the Board determined that the applicant received his due process and exercised his rights throughout the discharge proceedings.  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.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents.  He 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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