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

ex-OSSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-01287

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020912, 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 030722.  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: GENERAL (UNDER 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,

The following will serve as a request for recharacterization of discharge.  My name is (Applicant), and I was formerly enlisted in the United States Navy from 10/96 to 9/99. 1 was discharged from the navy with a general under honorable condition characterization.  I have been informed by several sources, including officers of the navy courts that this can be upgraded.  This is my reasonable request as there is a need for the change.  Without this upgrade, I will be forced to miss out on many opportunities for employment with numerous companies and the federal government.  I would hate to think, that not having one little word would forbid me from advancing to a higher goal in life of becoming a more productive citizen.  I ask that this board does all that it can, with all of its power to resolve this perplexing situation.  In closing, I would like to ask that this board reasonably consider the issue of this request.  All questions and correspondence may be directed to (Applicant) (address and telephone number deleted).  Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.

Respectfully,

2.  To the Naval Discharge Review Board,

Per your request, I submit this document and those following as evidence and issues that go to the heart of my case.  I would like to thank the board for reviewing my case and ask that you would bear with me as these events happened some time ago.  The attached exhibits are authentic and some are taken from the record of my Administrative Board that I received while on board USS Peleliu LHA-5.  Others are letters and certificates that will shed some light on the type of person that I was and what I had accomplished, before my enlistment. For clarity I have numbered each page that reference is given to in this document.  Now, the first series of exhibits were written while I was in high school.  Exhibit (1) is a letter of merit from my congressman for outstanding community service.  Exhibit (2) is a letter of recommendation from someone I worked for while in high school.  When reading exhibit (5), it is important to note that this letter is from the vice-mayor of my city with whom, I worked very closely with on a number of projects.  Looking to exhibit (6), you see I am a certified peer mediator specializing in conflict resolution.  These exhibits speak of my character, work ethic, and overall demeanor.  It should be duely noted that these events and awards all took place while in high school and show that my character was established at a young age. The next series of attachments are performance evaluations conducted while in the U.S. armed forces.  These tell of my performance while on board USS Fort Fisher and USS Peleliu in the deck department, TAD assignments, and the operations department.  If you read exhibits (7-22) closely you see that all the comments on performance are uniform, except the ones done by the operations department.  This reminds me of something my mother used to tell me when I was a kid.  She would say, everyone is saying the same thing about you, then they can't be telling a lie.  I submit to you that someone is telling lies.  Everyone is saying the same thing, except the operations department.  For this very reason, their statements should be regarded as highly suspect. Exhibit (23) deals with my need for a psychological evaluation based on statements from my division.  These are their versions of events and mine were never entered into the record.  Now, if you go to exhibit (24) you see the results of those evaluations.  The doctor at 32nd.  Street Naval Station found no evidence to support any diagnosis of a psychiatric nature, nor was there any evidence of a thought disorder or hallucinations, so again we have two different stories.  It is known that I passed the exam and made rank before many m that rate did, and they went to a specialty school for the job.  I think this is what started the attitudes within that department to become sour.  I think there was a malicious intent to get rid of me from the onset of my promotion, because of their incapability.  I submit to you that someone didn't want me there, and they tried every conceivable scheme to get rid of me.  These are their attempts to distort the truth, and are not corroborated by any other source but their own.  I think that this is clearly seen beyond a reasonable doubt. By virtue of the facts presented as to my life before the navy, you see that I would not travel two thousand miles away from my family, my friends, and my status to go to the navy and mess up my life.  Neither, would I go from a deck seaman, to a third class petty officer in the operations department, and then decide to create a mess.  I would not risk my rank after all the hard work of studying, sacrificing sleep, time and energy to deliberately mess up.  Don't let their realities and stories change your reality of what you know and see to be the truth.  You have the opportunity to show them that their is no place for deceitful, malicious tactics fueled by jealousy and personal vendettas in the U.S. armed forces.  By ruling in my favor you show them that their lies and uncorroborated stories win not work here.  I'm sure that this is not an easy decision to make, and that these claims are not at all what you, or I would expect to hear are happening in our armed forces.  I trust that this body convened will make the best assessment and render the proper verdict that is the solution to this situation.

Sincerely,
Documentation

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

Letter to Applicant from Congress of the United States, dated June 29, 1993
Personal recommendation, dated June 21, 1995
Letter of recommendation, dated December 15, 1995
Letter of recommendation, dated February 6, 1996
Letter of recommendation, undated
Certificate of distinguished achievement, dated March 12, 1993
Twenty-one pages from service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960927 - 961014	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  961015		Date of Discharge:  990915

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  11  01	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  71

Highest Rate:  OS3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.14 (7)	Behavior:  2.43 (7)		OTA:  2.71

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  AFEM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  1

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

970517:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Willful disobedience of Chief Petty Officer, to wit: that the smoking lamp was out and to extinguish his cigarette on 2200, 970511.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970517:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Willful disobedience of Chief Petty Officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990325:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey order), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

990625:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Combat Information Center at 1130, 990516, (2) Unauthorized absence from 0515, 990614 until 0615, 990615 (1 day/surrendered).
	Award: Forfeiture of $589 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to OSSN.  Appealed 990704.  Appeal denied 990714.

990709:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): (1) Failure to go to restricted muster 1800, 990625, (2) Failure to go to restricted muster 0630, 990701, (3) Failure to go to CIC Watch at 2330, 990628, (4) Failure to go to restricted muster 1130, 990629.
	Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990709:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.

990709:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

990830:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had not committed a commission of a serious offense, and had committed a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1, recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

990830:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): I concur with the findings and recommendations of the Board.  OSSN (Applicant) has had numerous opportunities to conform to the Navy's rules and regulations.  Despite numerous counseling sessions, OSSN (Applicant) has failed to live up to the Navy's core values.  OSSN (Applicant) possesses absolutely no potential for further useful Naval service.  OSSN (Applicant) was discharged with a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions).  OSSN (Applicant) is not recommended for reenlistment and has absolutely no potential for future service in any military organization.

991001:	CNPC message direct issuance of DD Form 215 to reflect correct SPD Code of GKA.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990915 under honorable conditions (general) 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’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

Issue 2.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions with one adverse counseling entry.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of 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. The Board was not persuaded that the Applicant was a victim of lies and prejudice against him by members of his command. Many sailors are discharged under other than honorable conditions for a pattern of misconduct similar to that which the Applicant’s record contains.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

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