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

 ex-ATAN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00751

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020430, 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 030131.  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.  BCNR Board Members,

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request an upgrade in the discharge that I received from the United States Navy in April of 2001.  The discharge I received was "Other than honorable", subcategorized under Pattern of Misconduct.  I personally feel as many others, that a pattern of misconduct was harsh for me, seeing only that I had personal financial problems and went to mast two times without losing rank. I will lay a few facts on my NJP's so that it is known what they were for.  The first NJP was for being UA (Article 86).  I received a ticket one weekend in Richmond, Virginia and was arrested for speeding.  I did not have enough money for bail, yet I notified my division LPO only two hours after my arrest and he notified my Division Officer immediately after I contacted him.  I stayed in jail for two days until my arraignment on the following Monday morning.  I was not at work that Monday due to being in custody of the Henrico County Jail Facility.  The judge released me on my own recognizance and I returned to my squadron and logged in with the night check supervisor.  I then returned to work the following day which was Tuesday at 05:45. My second NJP was for disobeying a direct order.  I used a government credit card which was unauthorized.  I used it during the times of a detachment to the USS Roosevelt CVN.  I also used the card for gas for my private vehicle. Those were my two NJP'S.  As I stated earlier, I had financial problems that I had caused.  I would like to go into detail about what all transpired during the last six months of my naval career. I was at a high point in my naval career at Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron.  I was a fully qualified plane captain and had the respect and trust of all the maintenance chiefs for day and night check.  Everyone knew that ATAN (Applicant) knew what he was doing with FA18 Hornets and I was not questioned about it.  When I had passed the 3rd class petty officer examination for the AT(O) rating everyone was very proud of me.  I had a zero percent discrepancy on my daily and turnaround inspections.  Chief P_ at the time was the line division chief.  Then Chief H_ relieved him and became the LCPO.  I at the time was going through some financial problems and he and I were working things out and had a game plan and it was working.  My personal problems were not affecting my work and that is what Chief H_ was worried about.  It eventually went away due to the fact that I had everything under control. Chief H_ got transferred to Maintenance Control for the day-check shift.  We received a new LCPO within that month in the line division to take Chief H_'s place; Senior Chief G_.  Once Senior Chief G_ came aboard it seemed that he had to prove that he was going to change things.  He had the line shack rebuilding walls and all kinds of things that were unneeded.  I at this point was on night check crew and did my job without one complaint and one problem.  On Monday afternoons we had training sessions at Strike.  One training day Senior Chief G_ brought to everyone's attention, the fact that if we had any problems we could bring them to him and not have anything to worry about and that he would do his best to help us out and get them solved.  He also said that anyone that he felt did not need to be in "his" Navy, he would make sure were not in "his" Navy. After that training day I felt that I should let him know that I owed a fellow shipmate 500 dollars for a personal loan.  I let him know and after that day I walked in the shop at 15:30 only to find out that he wrote up a counseling chit saying that I owed my fellow shipmate 500 dollars, and failed to pay him back.  That in itself showed me that I could not trust this Senior Chief.  He had stated that he would help us, not hurt us.  Yet he wrote me up and put it in my division folder.  That I felt was so unfair and did not feel I needed to let him know anything else about me because of fear of being written up, instead of getting honest help and guidance. As time passed, Senior Chief started prying into everyone's personal business outside the work center and work.  People in the line shack always talked about what we all did on weekends and what we all had done on our time off.  I happened to like to go to DC and Baltimore and get away from the base and see friends that happened to not be in the military and liked to go out and party.  Many times Senior Chief G_ would crack his door and just listen to what we were all talking about.  I knew this was true because when I was sent to CCU Senior Chief left his notebook, that he took notes in, with my baggage.  I owned one just like it.  I discovered it and noticed it wasn't mine after reading a few things.  I noticed how he had other fellow Airman's names and then statements and other underlined names.  I then knew what this Senior Chief was up to.  When I had come back from CCU some of those names matched those in the squadron that had gone to mast and that he was currently harassing about personal affairs. Senior Chief G_ made it a point to be in good with the master chief of our squadron.  There is a difference between trying to blend in and know fellow sailors and trying to get in good so that one can have their way.  When I first came aboard the squadron the master chief was a person I felt I could trust.  Then one day he posted up a picture frame that showed him as a "Shepard" and everyone he had kicked out of the Navy his "Lost Sheep".  That made me at that point sick and very untrusting of any high ranking enlisted officials and only confided in Officers which were pilots that I worked hand in hand with.  I am still upset that he had such a picture on the wall and that he is now retired and got away with such unprofessionally that he would preach about.  It was sad as well though that I could only trust the officers and had to travel across a street that divided our squadron.  We had pilots and officers across one side of the street and then the enlisted crew on the other side.  The only time both sides met were for quarters and for aircraft launches.  This in itself I felt was very unstructured due to the fact that there was no good communication between the lower ranking sailors on the enlisted side that wanted guidance from officers.  Our squadron was the only one out of all others I had visited that was structured like this which many agree is backwards.  No matter officer or enlisted the squadron should never be split up into two different worlds. Nevertheless, in my defense file for my admin board LT W_ has a picture of this picture master chief had on his wall.  I had wondered why no one had paid this any attention.  I also wondered how none of the officers that visited the master chief never told him that it was very unprofessional to have such a picture on the wall.  But it was not often they were upstairs on the enlisted side of the houses' hangar bay anyway.  I had taken several pictures of what he had posted on his wall and submitted them to LT W_.  This is a disgusting site for any new member that would come aboard a shore duty command to see.  We did not use them during the board review due to the fact that it was unprofessional in LT W_'s eyes.  He felt that we should not focus on discrediting the master chief but lay the facts down.  I felt that it was important to show the picture because it would show that the enlisted side was not even getting help from its higher ranking enlisted officials.  One of those people for an example was the Master Chief of the command.  And the picture on his wall was the proof.  It was heavily stated that we could get help from anyone upstairs in the hangar bay yet we had a legal officer that was a civilian that did nothing but push paperwork that the master chief told her to do without doing any kind of investigating or gathering of facts.  The civilian legal officer did not do anything to help one get a defense.  If one needed help, defense, or information they had to go to base legal or to the Washington Naval Yard and see a JAG Officer.  It was stated both times I had went to mast by our legal officer that she was only defending the squadron and stating the facts.  Yet I was going without defense, just my word. It was a one sided situation all the time for anyone that was going to mast.  This is why I feel there were many people, who were younger sailors kicked out of Strike's squadron.  There were two 2nd class petty officers (AE2 T_ and AE2 L_), that caused a jet fire in the hangar bay and got NO PUNISHMENT, just a slap on the wrist.  We had a 3rd class petty officer (AMH3 now AM3 S_), that placed an F-14 in, the mud for blatantly not following instructions for towing aircraft and did not have the proper people to even think of moving an aircraft.  We were humiliated in the Military magazine for the Navy (Offshore I believe), for all other squadrons and naval commands to laugh at.  This 3rd class received NO PUNISHMENT, once again another slap on the wrist.  THESE BEING MAJOR MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES!  These were not examples that needed to go unpunished. All three only had to write an article in the naval magazine.  They did not even get any punishment and this was a maintenance failure. If you were going out the door for anything, there was no help or no counseling for help to change or help change things so that you could get problems solved.  It was once stated by a chief that was upstairs that had an office next to the master chief that, "once they screw up they will always screw up, they did not need to be in the Navy or any military branch." Sickening I have to say, which kept many people from even talking or trying to get to know each other at events or squadron picnics and parties. I myself was not the perfect sailor and many were not as well, but I did my work with outstanding results and did my best to keep myself out of trouble off duty.  There were many people doing drugs and getting busted for fighting and rape of women and on and on.  Me, I just had financial problems and used a government credit card when I should not have.  And I got kicked out with not an Honorable or a General for all the things I had done and gotten praise for even if it wasn't on paper, I received praise.  Instead I get a discharge as if I had committed a crime in the military or done something to have affected the squadron.  If any it only affected me on my off time.  It did not affect anyone else but me.  Many times the Senior Chief of our division would bring up the fact that he had to spend countless hours and days to counsel me when he continued to bring it on himself because I was working on things to the best of my ability and getting help from my father who lived 1,300 miles away, in Louisiana.  He had told me many times that I needed to hurry up.  A person can not hurry up on certain things in life because it takes time to gather things and get them rolling.  You have to crawl before you walk.  You can not just pick up and run.  My father can vouch for me that I was doing better and doing what I could to fix all financial problems. Days before I was discharged the new Maintenance Master Chief stood in my face and called me pathetic and that I did not deserve to be in the Navy.  That in itself was untrue.  I was one of the best maintenance Line Division workers out there.  He was only fed the negative aspects of what transpired in the Senior Chief's eyes for the three months he had counseled me.  I was told that relying on my father was so unbecoming of a sailor and that I would not succeed if I needed my father to hand feed me all the time.  It was the CMC and the Division Officer who was Senior Chief G_ in the first place that told me to go to my father which I did not want to do.  The only reason my father got involved was because they both asked him if he could help.  After they had contacted him then did I ask him as well for his help and support.  That I am grateful for. When all came down after the two NJP's this new Senior Chief had convinced the new Maintenance Officer and new Assistant Maintenance Officer, the new Division Officer for the Line Division, and the new Maintenance Master Chief that had not been aboard the squadron more than six months that I was a dirtball.  The Commanding Officer did not want to give judgment because he didn't want to get rid of a good sailor which was why he only awarded me CCU on my first NJP and 45 days restriction on my second NJP because he knew that I was not a bad sailor.  He knew I was having problems and was doing what I could to change them.  The new Senior Chief many times convinced me to sell my car.
Yes, I purchased a new car in August of 2000.  But I was able to afford it and was paying for it via allotment.  I purchased this vehicle before any financial problems incurred.  And they did not occur until months after I had my new vehicle.  He had made comments of "How can an Airman afford a Dodge Intrepid" and things relating to that affect.  I know he wanted me to sell items that I was paying on and that I had before I was in the Navy.  And as I stated at the Admin Board and will continue to state, I will never sell my items to pay off bills when I can resolve them by paying them off with monthly payments, or get a consolidated loan.  He did not allow me time to get assistance nor to get a consolidation loan to take care of my small problem.  He blew it up as if I were causing chaos in the work center which was a total lie.  He wrote out counseling chits over and over again stating that I refused to change which I was changing yet he was asking the impossible of me.  I have enclosed over twenty witness statements of peers and of higher ranking officials that knew who I was and knew the work I generated state that I should have been retained.  As far as me bringing down morale in the work center.....FALSE STATEMENTS.  I have also enclosed many statements from peers and coworkers in the work center that state otherwise.
I know that I was blackballed by this Senior Chief and our Master Chief.  He had written a final counseling chit on me stating that I would have a plan by a certain date and I had let him know that it was impossible because I was not getting paid for two months by the Navy.  I had pay taken away from me and I still had two weeks of no pay.  Yet he insisted I would have a plan.  I told him that I was not going to promise something when there was no possible way I could do it.  I also stated that I was not going to sign the counseling chit and that I wanted to speak to a legal officer about it.  He only replied back with a smart comment that I had that choice but that he would sign in my spot stating that I refused to sign the chit and that the LPO would be the witness to it.  I had been as honest as I could have been to him yet he wrote up a plan instead of leaving what I had written then wrote me up again and routed an admin separation package through the squadron and the base. After I had attended my second NJP our command had a command assessment and brought out a lot of truths.  Many people spoke out against this new Senior Chief and how he was out to ruin many people.  He was transferred from our work center as LCPO and sent to QA of our squadron with only 1st and 2nd class petty officers, instead of working with the new sailors which were airmen and 3rd class petty officers that weren't perfect and needed guidance, to better themselves for the challenging events and future of the Navy.
I was unfairly treated by this new Senior Chief and was just preyed on because of my financial problems when my father was assisting me to get me back on track.  I had a total of three months of financial hardship and had drawn out plans and solutions yet was not given a chance to finish letting them come through to clearing me to the light.
I would appreciate a discharge of honorable due to the facts that I had many people that knew exactly what kind of person I was and knew the work and how committed I was to the Navy.  Just because one Senior Chief comes aboard our squadron and has 26 years under his belt and came from a Leadership Continuum School, wants to harp on me about things that could have been corrected with time.  With the right guidance, patience and support I could have been on my feet within six months.  And six months is not a long period of time when what I was dealing with never once affected the squadron in anyway.  It never even affected the person I owed money, who happened to work in the same work center as I did.  I was not a dirtball as he was working on so hard to make people believe.  I know this now and knew it then and I have many people that can back that up.

Sincerely for Consideration,

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Witness statement from LCDR
Witness statement from AMC
Witness statement from ATC
Witness statement from AE (AW)
Witness statement from AT1
Witness statement from ABF1
Witness statement from AME1
Witness statement from AD1 (AW)
Witness statement from AD1
Witness statement from AT3
Witness statement from AE3
Witness statement from AMAN
Witness statement from AMAN
Witness statement from ATAN
Witness statement from PRAN
Witness statement from AMAN
Witness statement from AMAN
Witness statement from AE2
Witness statement from AT3
Witness statement from ATAN
Witness statement from ADAN
Certificate of completion, dated November 25, 1998
Certificate of completion, dated January 28, 1999
Local enlisted standards and non-standard data element for mini-master
School completion certification, dated November 1, 2000
Certificate of completion, dated June 7, 1999
Certificate of completion, dated June 17, 1999
Certificate of completion, dated June 25, 1999
Certificate of completion, dated June 4, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	980625 - 980714	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  980715		Date of Discharge:  010425

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  09  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  ATAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.50 (2)	Behavior:  2.00 (2)		OTA:  2.58

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

001209:	Warrant of Arrest - Misdemeanor:  Applicant to appear in traffic for driving a vehicle on the highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of and person.

001220:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency, notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  
[Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 010313.]

010120:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ATAA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  
[Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 010313.]

010207:	Civil conviction: General District Court, Richmond, VA for violation of fail to wear seat belt.
Sentence: Fine $25.00.

011213:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86.
	Award: Correctional custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record. 
[Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 010313.]

010314:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010313:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim):  [ATAN W_ (Applicant) has consistently demonstrated an inability to conform to Navy rules and regulations.  In spite of his additional training at the Correctional Custody Unit, Norfolk VA and his chain of command attempts to help him become a good, responsible Sailor, ATAN W (Applicant) has failed to meet his duty responsibilities and abide by all Navy Rules and Regulations.  I have, therefore determined that ATAN W_ has no further potential for Naval service and request that he be administratively separated in accordance with reference (a) with an Other Than Honorable discharge.]
 
010314:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

010410:	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.

010423:	Commander, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division 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 010425 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).

Issues 1:  The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  The Applicant believes his discharge characterization and reason for discharge was too harsh.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  The receipt of certificates of course completion and favorable performance evaluations during an Applicant’s enlistment, do not guarantee an honorable discharge.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure of that expected of a sailor.  While the NDRB agrees that the Applicant had good performance evaluations, his service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions due to his own misconduct, which resulted in award of non-judicial punishment on two occasions for violations of the UCMJ as well as a civil conviction.  Furthermore, his Administrative Discharge Board by unanimous vote determined that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and that the misconduct warranted separation under other than honorable conditions.  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:  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, and certification of non-involvement with civil, are examples of verifiable documents that should be 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 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