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

 ex-RMSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00656

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington, DC Area.  The Naval Discharge Review Board (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.  Upon entering the military on Feb 9, 1989, I had wishes on making a career like my father.  I was young and very undecided on what I wanted to do with my life, so I choose to the navy for adventure and travel.  The military gave me more money and opportunity than I ever had, with those two issues combined I then got into mischief.  On April 12 to April 27 I was UA, also May 1 to May 2 1990 I was UA, this was due to being young and very irresponsible upon which I was sent to correctional custody for 30 days.  I did learn my lesson during those 30 days but once again I made some bad judgment calls and I was punished.  While on restriction I got mixed up with some guys who no longer had the desire to be in the military and me being a young sailor, already on restriction listen and made a decision to leave, one which I have regretted up until this point.  The military gave me a feeling that I haven't had since enlistment; and that was a feeling of achievement.  I serve my country in operation desert storm from 90 Aug 20 - 91 Apr 17 proudly.  Being discharged I felt I really let myself and others down, because I still had the desire to give my country 20 plus of my life.  My achievements in the U.S. Navy out weight my downfalls by far, such as upon entering the fleet I went to 'A' School in San Diego.  I didn't do as well a I expected in school so I had to go to the fleet.  While there as a boatswain mate, I study everyday to be a RM, which I went to school for.  The test came and I passed and was promoted to RM3 M_.  That was a major highlight of my short navy career.  I also received the southwest Asia campaign medal, for my service in the Persian Gulf, along with the bronze star. I also received the national defense ribbon, along with (2) sea service ribbons.  Upon reading this, for whoever it may concern, please understand I was young and made very bad decisions please consider my upgrade, because if nothing I served my country and put my life on the line such as many and I am deserving of things due to me such as benefits and GI Bill also other things that veterans are granted.  I now am married with three kids and I am trying to provide them a better life along with the essentials children along with my wife needs.  The upgrading of my discharge would with no doubt help me with these goals of mine.  I seriously regret the early dismissal but if ask to drop everything and serve my country I wouldn't think twice.  Thank you for taking time to listen and I sincerely hope I am finally heard.

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):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	881207 - 890210	COG
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890211		Date of Discharge:  910930

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  07  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  RM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (3)	Behavior:  3.00 (4)		OTA:  2.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SACM(wb*), NDR, SSDR(2),

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  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:

900222:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), UA from appointed place of duty.
Award:  Forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 10 days, extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900607:	Retention Warning from [USS IWO JIMA (LPH -2)]:  Advised of deficiency Violation of the UCMJ, Art 86, Unauthorized absence, notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

900607:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 900412 to 900425 (13 days) and UA from 0700, 900501 to 0800, 900502 (1 day).
	Award:  Correctional Custody Unit for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910703:	Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3).  Applicant declared a deserter on 910702 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1530, 910701 from USS IWO JIMA (LPH-2).  SMN returned from UA status 1 July and placed on pre-mast restriction.  SMN broke restriction and declared intentions to desert.

910711:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (5 Specifications), UA from appointed place of duty on (1) 910621, (2) 910624, (3) 910625, (4) UA from unit from 910701 to 910709 (8 days/Surrendered), (5) UA from 910626 to 910701 (5 days/Surrendered); violation of UCMJ Article 107: Made a false official statement to a Chief Petty Officer on 910625; violation of UCMJ Article 123A: Uttered checks amounting to $1,125.00 from 910620 to 910625.
Award:  Forfeiture of $466.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910712:	Report of Return of Deserter.  Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 910709 (0630) onboard USS IWO JIMA (LPH-2). Returned to military control 910709 (0630).  Retained onboard for DISACT/DISPO.

910717:	USS IWO JIMA (LPH-2) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

910717:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

910809:	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, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

910814:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  

910827:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge other than honorable 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 910930 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).

Responding to the Applicant’s request for an upgrade so that he might receive Veterans’ benefits, the Board noted that the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

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.  The Applicant’s record reflects a pattern of misconduct evidenced by three NJP’s for multiple periods of unauthorized absence.  An Administrative Discharge Board determined unanimously that the Applicant’s actions warranted separation under other than honorable conditions.   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 is reminded that he is 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.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  The Applicant’s request for an upgrade of his Other Than Honorable discharge is denied.

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 “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