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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00631

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020404, 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.  In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington D.C. area.  Applicant advised the Board that he was unable to be present at such a proceeding due to duties and demands.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030124.  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.  Dear DRB: The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable.  If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree.  The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting.

1.  I have been a good citizen since discharge.
In the years since my discharge I have led a respectable life.  I have furthered my education as well as kept myself employed.  I have completed Michigan Corrections Officer Training and Michigan Firefighter I and II Certification.  I have also recently become a Michigan Firefighter Instructor.  I am an active member of the Hanison Community Fire Department, and currently act as the Public Fire Safety Education Officer for the department.  I also own my own mobile DJ Service.

2.  My record of AWOL/UA indicates only minor or isolated offenses.
The incidents of UA in my record are rather questionable.  In fact, I personally looked into the alleged UA charges and could not get a straight answer.  One incident of alleged UA involved consulting the base Chaplain and also having my Company Commander asked to leave the disciplinary proceedings due to a personality conflict.  As well as his statements not being consistent with the charges.  Another alleged incident dated 87APRO2-87APRO3, is a charge I was not even aware of until the discharge papers were prepared and I was asked to sign them.  With regards to the last supposed incident, the one that resulted in my discharge, I disputed that as well.  According to my DD-214 I was UA 87JUN09-87JUN23.  On or about June 23, 1987, my parents received a letter from the U.S Navy stating I had been UA for more time than even the lost time amounts reflect.  This is all compounded by the fact that I was indeed not absent from my duties.  In fact I received a telephone call in Virginia from my father in Michigan on June 22, 1987 stating he had received said letter.  Had it not been for that phone call, I never would have known of the situation.  As I checked further into the matter, I discovered that other service members in my squadron had had similar problems.  I discussed the matter with several other service members and officers (who later refused to speak on my behalf).  The majority of those I talked to stated that if I had indeed been absent on the days in question, I would have been apprehended on sight, yet I was reporting to my assigned post every day.  Several Naval and Army Officers also informed me that I should have been sent to a Court Martial for the charges.  I was not; each incident was handled by my C.O. In my defense I offered a rather lengthy written statement that I had prepared, it was not accepted at the proceedings.  I still have portions of it.  I was simply told that "The Navy was not for me, and I was not for the Navy".  I was then informed that I was to serve 45 days in restriction then be discharged.  I did not serve more than a third of my restricted time.  I will admit that I did miss musters and so on, but the UA are charges were questionable at best.  And I definitely feel that the "Patterns of Misconduct' as noted in my records is not justified as all charges were disputed.  To this day I still dispute them and I am disturbed by the image such statements project about my character.

3.  My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and maturity.
There is little to discuss on this issue.  I feel it needs to be brought up because it may have had an effect on my service.  As is typical at that age, I did tend to disregard authority and rebel.  In fact was this issue that was mentioned at one disciplinary as noted above, when a Company Commander was asked to leave the room.  That situation resulted from a personality conflict between said Company Commander and myself.  It was said issue that became a significant aspect of the charges against me.  To put it bluntly, I slept through a muster, and the next thing I know, I am charged with UA for a week.  Witnesses and other members of the barracks offered testimony to no avail.  I served a few days in restricted barracks and that was the end of the issue, or so I thought.  Unfortunately my youth and attitude got the best of me and the personality conflict began to worsen until, low and behold I was charged with UA again.  As you can see I highly disagree with the lost time dates listed on my DD-214.  I know I was placed on report for minor offenses etc.  But I cannot except the patterns listed.

4.  My discharge was based on many offenses, but they were mostly only minor offenses.
I take issue with this point with regards to the several offenses I was accused of.  I was told then, and to this date I still am told that with four alleged incidents, punishment would have been stiffer.  This of course is assuming that I was indeed guilty of the actual UA dates listed.  I have also been told that if, before the last incident, I was exhibiting a pattern of misconduct, I would not have stayed in the Navy as long as I did, or I would have been handed harsher penalties.

5.  My command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and decided to give me a bad discharge.
Prior to my disciplinary proceedings members of my family, Attorneys (civilian), and Military Lawyers made several calls to the base from other branches of the service.  The squadron Executive Officer made me aware of this.  Said phone conversations were discussed at my formal hearing.  It was brought to my attention that an error had been made somewhere with regards to my UA charge.  Yet the evidence and statements on my behalf showing what the error was, were never brought to light.  I was asked if wanted to stay in the Navy.  After all the problems I had faced up to that point, I could not in good conscience say yes.  I would have liked to continue my military career, but I could not go through the hassle anymore.  I was trying to learn, did well in my schools, was commended by my superiors when on temporary duty assignments, and was anxiously waiting the chance to go to my next assignment and perhaps see more of the world.  But the Commanding officer left me few options.  I was also told that I would be receiving a General Discharge.  It was not until I was called from the restricted barracks to the squadron that I was informed that the discharge condition would be Other Than Honorable.  I was then informed that since I had the supposed Pattern of Misconduct, my discharge had to be O.T.H. I just wanted it all to end, so I accepted, not knowing how much grief it would cause.

6.  Other.
When I joined the Navy, there was a lot going on my life.  I was young and wanted to get out on my own.  A member of our family was causing us all a lot of grief and I had hoped that joining the Navy would get me away from him.  It didn't work; he caused problems no matter where any of my family happened to be. In fact, attached you will find an Order of Name Change.  It is a long confusing story, but suffice it to say that I was named after the man that made life so difficult.  My name was changed to the same as the man who has had the most positive influence on my life.  I might add that I was also later adopted at the age of 24 so that I could complete the goals I had set to getting my life on track and keeping it there.  I believe I have done that.  I am known and respected in the community, I serve the public as a firefighters and I have no criminal record.
I wanted to learn, see the world and serve my country.  Unfortunately I ran to problems that I could not solve.  I enjoyed most of the time I spent in the Navy.  Aside from the disciplinary incidents, I feel the Navy was a valuable experience, one that I would have liked to further.  Perhaps none of this is grounds for a review or change in my status.  I learned while I was in the service, which I thought was one of the military's goals.  Since my Discharge, I have kept my life straight because I have kept values learned in the service.  A lot of what I learned the service stayed with me.  The only thing missing is the Honorable Discharge.  I do not wish to be the first mate in my family to go through life with anything less than an Honorable Discharge. It pains me to think that I was discharged under such conditions that I could never again serve my country.  My reenlistment code shows that.  That is part of the reason I became a firefighter, if I could not serve my country, perhaps I could serve my community.  During our country's times of need I have had to sit in sorrow because here I was a young, healthy, educated, prior serviceman that has been deemed unfit to enlist.  Not only do I feel it reflects badly when I have to explain to people why I cannot serve my country, but it effects me emotionally.  I served what time I could for my country, yet I am not a "Veteran".  I would like to know that the time I did serve was of value to my country.  And I would hope that in showing that I did take something positive away from the service, I could get the Discharge and Veteran status I had hoped for.

I realize that it has been almost fifteen years since my discharge, and the question of why I waited so long can be answered simply, I was afraid of dealing with the Navy again.  Actually I did petition the Navy many years ago to have my discharge upgraded.  I received no response so I let the matter be.  But now I am coming to a turning point in my life, I am preparing to get married and start a family and would so dearly love to have the Honorable Discharge to show my children later in life.  It could be enough to instill the pride in their country that I feel.  I do not know what the standards are for upgrading discharges, but I would hope that the effect the military had on the rest of my life would want the upgrade I so richly desire.  I would just like it noted that the offenses that resulted in my discharge are questionable.  Many things were said and done with regards to these offenses which were never brought to light.  Had I gone AWOL or committed the acts I was accused of, I would never have considered requesting an upgrade.  But there are too many holes and things that do not make sense.  Combine this with the fact that I was not absent on all the dates listed and you will see that something was not right.  I understand that I was not a model sailor, but I have seen many service members commit worse offenses and get lesser punishments.

With all that in mind, it is at this time I will close by saying that I respectfully request that my discharge be changed to Honorable.  Sincerely,

Documentation

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

Applicant's DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Order changing name dated October 26, 1988
Letter from Applicant dated June 16, 2002
Transcript from Mid Michigan Community College dated July 17, 1990
Certificate from Mid Michigan Community College dated May 5, 1990
Examination result notice from State of Michigan, Department of Civil Service dated March 16, 1990
Letter of completion dated March 20, 1991
Certificate of Completion dated April 29, 1997
Certificate of Completion dated August 23, 1997
Certificate of Completion dated August 24, 1997
Certificate of Attainment dated June 2, 1999
Certificate of Achievement dated September 9, 1999
Certificate of Completion dated March 26, 2000
Certificate of Completion dated February 29, 2000
Certificate of Completion dated October 25, 2000
Certificate of Completion dated December 2, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	841222 - 861014	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  851015			Date of Discharge:  870720

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  09  06
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  17 Parental Consent		Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  87

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (1)			Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  2.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  35 

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:

851021:	Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL:  Advised of deficiency and conduct (4th Class Swimmer qualified), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies. 

870108:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 0660, 18 Nov 86 until 0948, 25 Nov 98 (7 days/surrendered), (2) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0650 - 1820, 1 Dec 86, (3) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0650 - 0730, 7 Jan 87.
	Award: Correctional custody for 7 days, reduction to AR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870108:	Retention Warning from Commanding Officer, Naval Air Technical Training Center, Naval Air Station, Memphis, Milllington, TN:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from 0650, 18 Nov 86 until 0948, 25 Nov 86 and unauthorized absence from 0650 until 1828 on 1 Dec 86.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

870226:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0650, 2 Feb 87 until 1515, 9 Feb 87 (7 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $153 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870326:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0630 - 0715, 5 Mar 87, (2) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0600 - 0740, 12 Mar 87, (3) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty from 0630 - 0700, 16 Mar 87.
	Award: Forfeiture of $153 per month for 1 month, restriction for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870616:	HELMINERON THREE notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 29Jun87.]

870623:	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.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 29Jun87.]

870625:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 1 Jun 87 to 8 Jun 87 (7 days), (2) Unauthorized absence from 0700, 9 Jun 87 to 1400, 23 Jun 87 (14 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $329 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870629:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

870707:	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 870720 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 asked the Board to consider his post-service accomplishments in reviewing his case for consideration of clemency.  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.  However, 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.  While the Applicant’s initiative to date, particularly his public service efforts as a firefighter, have been commendable, the Board did not consider that the Applicant’s post-service of such nature as to overcome the other than honorable characterization of his discharge.  Relief denied.

Issue 2, 3 & 4:  The Applicant contends that the record of AWOL/UA indicates only minor or isolated offenses, and his ability to serve was impaired by youth and maturity.   The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the characterization or reason for discharge.  The record is clear that the Applicant’s misconduct, to include four NJP’s and two retention warnings in 21 months of service, was not in keeping with the standards of the Naval service.  Additionally, the Board found that the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his youth and immaturity were factors that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that 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 based on these issues is denied.

Issue 5:  The Applicant stated "my command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and decided to give me a bad discharge."  There is no evidence of impropriety, inequity or procedural irregularities in the Applicant's discharge.  The Applicant was afforded ample opportunity to correct his deficiencies, however, he failed to do so.  The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented.  He acknowledged and waived his rights to administrative review.  The Applicant was afforded the appropriate due process at every opportunity.  The NDRB found the Applicant's service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge to an honorable characterization.  Relief denied.

Issue6:  The Applicant contends he joined the Navy to get away from a family member who was causing problems, and the Applicant did obtain an Order of Name Change.  The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging.  Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to ensure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country.  It must be noted that most members of the navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.  In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  The NDRB agrees the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, effective 870615 - 890110), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 “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