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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00196

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020102, 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 020731.  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, as submitted

1.  I was discharged for UA.  I feel that at the time I was basically a dumb kid that made a very bad mistake that ruined a potentially good career for me.  Over the last ten years I came to realize how big of a mistake it was.  I'm very proud to be an American and was proud to serve my country.  And I would like to possibly serve again.  I feel that I can be a very valuable asset to the United States Military and would give 110% effort.  I'm older and wiser so there will be no reassurances of the young immature behavior I showed during my prior time of service.  Thank you for considering my request.

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			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	891118 - 891225	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  891226		Date of Discharge:  911230

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  10  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  68

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.93 (3)	Behavior:  2.95 (3)		OTA:  3.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NUC, NDSM, SASMw2b*, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  20?

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:

Undated:	Retention Warning from [USS SARATOGA (CV-60)]:  Advised of deficiency (CO's NJP on 901221 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, disobeying a lawful order from a second class petty officer; violation of the UCMJ, Article 117, provoking words towards a second class petty officer and violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, drunk and disorderly conduct), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

901221:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobeying a lawful order by a second class petty officer, violation of UCMJ Article 117: Provoking words towards a second class petty officer, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Drunk and disorderly.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910703:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Use of a controlled substance, marijuana, on or about 900712.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $376.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910809:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order by missing 6 restricted men's muster.
	Award:  3 days Bread & Water.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911017:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, Specification: UA from (910912 to 910930?); Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87, Specification: Missing ship's movement on 920912.
	Finding:  to Charge I and II, and the specification thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  3 days Bread & Water, confinement for 24 days, forfeiture of $496.00 pay per month for 1 month.
	CA action 011024:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.

911108:	Released from confinement and returned to full duty.

911112:	Medical Officer's evaluation indicates Applicant is not drug or alcohol dependent.
 
911114:	[USS SARATOGO (CV-60)] notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your three Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishments and one Summary Court-Martial, and for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your disobedience of a lawful order, and your act of missing ship's movement, and for misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your wrongful use of marijuana.

911114:  	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.

911216:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to drug abuse, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
 
911230:	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 911230 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 states in his letter, "I was discharged for UA."  The Applicant's package clearly documents 3 non-judicial punishments and a summary court-martial for numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Applicant's violations included disobeying an order, communicating provoking words to a superior, drunk and disorderly behavior, use of a controlled substance, missing restricted musters, 18 days of unauthorized absence and missing the movement of his ship.

The Applicant contends his problems were the result of being a "dumb kid."  The Board found 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 actions, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirement of military discipline and demonstrated 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 on this basis is denied.

The Applicant requests the opportunity to possibly serve in the U.S. military again.  The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or to make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any of the other branches of the Armed Forces.  The Navy's reenlistment policy is promulgated by the Chief of Naval Personnel.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Therefore, relief on this basis may not be granted.

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  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.  The Applicant failed to provide any of evidence of post-service factors.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge.  The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period.  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 recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), 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