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

 ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00441

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020304, 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 021029.  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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  I don't feel I was mature enough to fulfill a four year enlistment at that point in my life I have since gained what I need to feel as though I should re-enlist and could complete a full term of enlistment.  If you do inspect why I was discharged it was because of my actions.  But I would like to point out from my side there were medical aspects that contributed to my way of acting and overall demise.  I now ask for the Boards mercy and help to upgrade my discharge so I can re-enlist and fulfill my original commitment.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Sincerely

Documentation

In addition to the service record (medical record not available to the Board), 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)	990910 - 991005	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991006		Date of Discharge:  000928

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  11  13
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  11			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  ICFA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF			Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  11

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

000719:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (3 specs): Underage drinking, and wrongfully being in civilian clothes while in a duty status, not sleeping in his assigned bunk.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000719:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Poor military performance, to wit: unauthorized absence, failure to obey lawful order.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000726:	ARD Impression: Applicant does not meet DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse at this time.

000810:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Absent from organization 2030, 21 Jul 00 until 2117, 24 Jul 00 (3 days), (2) Absent from organization from 0545, 8 Aug 00 until 1100, 10 Aug 00 (2 days), violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use a controlled substance between 20 Jun 00 and 10 Jul 00, to wit: marijuana, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully drinking alcoholic beverages under the age of 21, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully urinate in a public place on 5 Aug 00,
	Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000810:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, commission of a serious offense, and a pattern of misconduct.

000810:	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 

000818:	Commanding Officer, Service School Command, Great Lakes, IL recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.

000825:	Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

000901:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1900, 1 Sep 00.

000908:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1215, 8 Sep 00 (6 days/surrendered).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000928 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 NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct and willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The Board found the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  The Applicant’s service of eleven months and thirteen days is marred by award of non-judicial punishment on two occasions.  The record is devoid of any evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Under other than honorable conditions most clearly describes the Applicant’s character of service.  Relief denied.

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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, 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 evidence to mitigate his conduct while on active duty, and therefore an upgrade based on post-service conduct is not warranted.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 “afls14.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