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

 ex-ROCA, USN
Docket No. ND02-01108

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020801, 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 030424.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Dear Sir or Madam:

I, (Applicant), USN, (SSN deleted), am writing this letter in regards to my discharge on April 15, 1996.  I am requesting an upgrade of my discharge to Honorable.

During the time I served in the United States Navy, I served with pride and honor.  I was a dedicated sailor and this dedication I feel is the principal reason I am no longer in the Navy.  On May 15, 1989, I was asked to fill an overseas position because of the increase workload in Panama.  This assignment was in a military hot zone and I felt the experience would be invaluable to my advancement in the Navy.  The problem with this particular assignment was that it conflicted with my approved leave.  Prior to this overseas opportunity I had agreed to take leave with my wife in Gulfport, Mississippi.  However as a result of my decision to accept the assignment tremendous strain was place on my marriage.  I feared that my marriage was in serious danger, and regretfully, I allowed this to affect my better judgment.

Prior to this assignment I had been a model sailor.  I was preparing for promotion to E-5 at the time of the misconducts that eventually resulted in my 'other than honorable discharge'.  I employ you to consider the harsh realties this discharge has caused me since my separation from the Navy.  Because of the inability to use my valuable military experience, I have had enormous difficulties getting hired by employers that pay enough to support a family.

A sailor that breaks the regulations and traditions of the Navy should be discipline accordingly to the laws of the UCMJ.  I have felt the horrendous results of breaking these honor traditions.  I learned many of these traditions: honor, discipline, responsibility, teamwork, and respect.  I also learned tolerance and I am asking for your tolerance, while considering the upgrade of my Naval discharge.  The incidents that led to my discharge do not accurately represent my character.  I have lived my life as a civilian with respect to the laws of the United States.

I have been and upstanding civilian but I can be a greater contributor to my family and society.  An "Honorable Discharge" gives me the opportunity to become a more stable contributor to society, however, the other than honorable discharge has caused me to hide my service in the Navy.  I made some questionable decisions as a youth but I am asking for a chance to ratify those decisions.  I have been punish and foregone many opportunities, but the other than honorable discharge over tilts the scale of just and due punishment and will continue for the rest on my life, if my discharge is not upgraded to Honorable.

I am asking the review board to upgrade my discharge to Honorable and a correction of records to include all the rights and privileges of a Petty Officer Third Class.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, 

Documentation

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

Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records, incorporated as Applicant's issue, undated (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	860421 - 860903	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860904		Date of Discharge:  960415

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    09  05  12	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (14 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  39

Highest Rate:  EO3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.52 (5)	Behavior:  3.60 (5)		OTA:  3.56

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR (3), NER, USCGMUC with O Device

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  1838

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

891109:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0600, 890830 until 1400, 890914 (14 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $350 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to ROCN.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900518:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0645, 900424 until 1800, 900427 (3 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed movement on 900427.
	Award: Forfeiture of $462 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EOCN.  Forfeiture of second month suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900518:	Retention Warning from Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Seven:  Advised of deficiency (Disregard for rules regarding leave and liberty. Fifteen day unauthorized absence over leave Aug 89, and 4 day unauthorized absence/missing movement Apr 90, both documented on NAVPERS 1070/607.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

901112:	Applicant to unauthorized absence.  Applicant failed to report to PHIBCB TWO.

901211:	Applicant declared a deserter.

960123:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 2400, 901211 until 1030, 960103 (1821 days/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $490.35 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EOCA.  No indication of appeal in the record.

960306:	Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.

960306:	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.

960307:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

960402:	BUPERS 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 960415 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:  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The record is void of any evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions and an unauthorized absence in excess of four years, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was discharged.  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. An upgrade to honorable would be very inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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 authorities, 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 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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