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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00613

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to the Bronx, NY.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116.  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.  Prior to joining the U.S. Navy I completed one semester of college with a B average. Needing to cut costly out-of-state fees; I returned home to transfer schools.  Three friends convinced me to talk to a recruiter with them.  To make a long story short we all signed under the Buddy system as undesignated strikers I reference these events because in basic training a recruit explained that after ATD school he was guaranteed E-4 because of college credits.  I found out that allot of recruits were offered A, C, & E schools among other things.  Plus my recruiter did not tell the truth about designated fields or my college credits.  He said that all recruits go in the Navy undesignated strikers and after eighteen months they are eligible to strike for a field.  We trusted what he said because we did not know different.  This is how I ended in Deck Dept. on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.  When I arrived to my duty station I was bunked under First-class P.O. G_ and near Second-class B_, who became Chief G_ and first-class P.O. B_ and raised havoc for me from day one.  When my dept. found out I had an interest in striking for Hospital Corpsman all the problems started.  As long you acted like you love Deck Dept. they (our superiors) loved you.  I was aggressively antagonized, picked-on, and given extra duty to deter me from volunteering my time in medical to prepare for the striker's exam.  My superiors made me feel secure telling me 'what ever field you decide to strike for we will set you up with the time to do it.'  That never did happen.  I turned to Chief M_ and Master Chief about the unfair treatment I was receiving.  They brushed it off.  Other seamen in Deck Dept. told me they too wanted to strike out but the dept. made it hard for them.  The treatment I'm getting they had also.  They said "stop fighting it just join in and stay or you will always get the shitty job.”  After I asked the Sr. Chief of Medical to talk to my Chief about setting up some study time; I moved from the frying pan into the oven.  My mother wrote Captain H_ about this situation.  He too shrugged it off.  At this point frustrated; things looking hopeless, I just wanted out.  Legal advised me that if I am AWOL just a few days I could be offered separation.  Legal gave me a choice to stay or get out under other than honorable conditions.  Not knowing what all that entailed I signed to be released.

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant's mother to Captain, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN-72)
dated April 11, 1990
Letter to Applicant's mother from Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN-72) dated April 27, 1990

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	881213 - 881226	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881227		Date of Discharge:  910414

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  52

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (2)	Behavior:  3.10 (2)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  22/27

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:

881230:	Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL:  Advised of deficiency (Non-swim qualified.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

891128:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715 - 1145, 28 Nov 89.

900131:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1700- 2300, 20 Dec 89, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobey a lawful order from a PO3 on 18 Dec 89.
	Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to SR.  Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900315:	Vacate suspended forfeiture of $362.00 for 1 month and reduction to SA awarded at CO's NJP dated 31 Jan 90 due to continued misconduct.

900315:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 2000, 20 Feb 90 to 0045, 21 Feb 90, (2) Failing to go to appointed place of duty at 0630, 8 Feb 90, (3) Failing to go to appointed place of duty at 0630, 10 Feb 90.
	Award: Correctional custody for 30 days.  Deferred until 30 Mar 90.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900315:	Retention Warning from USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72):  Advised of deficiency (Pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 - unauthorized absence from 2000, 20 Feb 90 to 0045, 21 Feb 90, and 0630, 8 Feb 90 to 0630, 10 Feb 90.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

901228:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 28 Dec 90.

910124:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 1720, 24 Jan 91 (27 days/surrendered).

910129	Absence not excused.

910215:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 specs):  (1) Unauthorized absence from 28 Dec 90 until 19 Jan 91 (24 Jan 91) (22 days), (2) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 1540, 8 Jan 91, (3) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 0940, 91 Jan 91, (4) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 1640, 11 Feb 91, (5) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 2130, 11 Feb 91, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 11 Jan 91, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect to a PO3 on 6 Nov 90.
	Award: Forfeiture of $376 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910220:	USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.

910220:	Applicant advised of 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.

910328:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): [SR C_’s (Applicant’s) history of NJP for UA has proven his unreliability.  He is a sub-standard performer who requires constant supervision over any and all tasks assigned.  SR C_ (Applicant) does not possess the initiative nor the self motivation to better himself in any way.  He cannot be trusted and does not have the potential for further useful naval service.]

910404:	CNMPC 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 910414 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).

Issue 1:  The Applicant was properly and equitably processed for separation for a pattern of misconduct.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions, to include the appropriate retention and discharge warnings.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable 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 denied.

The following is provided for the Applicant’s information:  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 relief, based on post-service conduct.  

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 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), 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