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

 ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00872

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020607, 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 030331.  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.  To Whom It May Concern:  I am requesting an upgrade in my discharge from the United States Navy.  I was given an Other Than Honorable discharge on February 13, 2001. The reason behind the discharge were 2 charges of unauthorized absence.  There were extreme circumstances that led to these charges.  At the time I believe I was suffering from being bi-polar.  This condition was not diagnosed until after I left the military.  As I continued to do my day to day job, I repeatedly told my supervisors that I felt I was a danger to myself and the patients I was treating.  They continued to ignore my pleas even after the first time I went UA.  When I went UA, I went to my parents house and made it known to my supervisors where I was at.  When I returned, they continued to offer me no help in resolving my issues.  It was not until after a suicide attempt in September 2001 did someone finally listen to me and correctly diagnose me.
I feel I served my country honorably and my work was outstanding.  My shipmates all liked me and my supervisors agreed that the work I was doing was outstanding. I am just asking to fairly judge the whole picture and not just what my military record states.  Thank you for your consideration.

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)	970728 - 970924	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970925		Date of Discharge:  010213

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  93

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (5)	Behavior:  2.20 (5)		OTA:  2.93

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Navy Pistol Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  10

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:

981125:	NJP for violation unknown.  No further information found in service record.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 010126 and NAVPERS 1070/604.]

001025:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from unit on 0730, 000929 to 001003 (4 days).
	Award: Forfeiture of $337 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

001117:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officer's NJP and was found guilty of Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on 25 Oct 2000), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

001205:	Vacate suspended sentence of forfeiture of $337.00 and extra duty for 14 days.

001215:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (1) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 0730, 001127 to 0931, 001128 (1 day), to wit: Regimental Aid Station, (2) Unauthorized absence 0730, 001129 to 0937, 001204 (5 days).
	Award: Forfeiture of $667 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HN.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010126:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all incidences of misconduct in the current enlistment.

010126:	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 

010126:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

010201:	CNPC 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 010213 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.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions and an adverse counseling entry on another occasion.  While he may feel that a personality disorder and lack of help from his chain of command were factors that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his 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 denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  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 21 Aug 2002, 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