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

  ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00042

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021004, 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 20030828.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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

J---- M---- T-----
SSN -----------

I am requesting a review of my discharge.  Please review the following:

1.	Change Character of Service from "Under other than Honorable Conditions" to "Honorable"
2.	Separation Authority

3.	Separation Code

4.	Reentry Code

5.	Narrative reason for Separation from Misconduct to "Honorable"

There were not enough incidents to warrant my discharge to be "Under other than Honorable Conditions".  In accordance to MILSPERMAN ARTICLE 4 reads "Three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than three days duration each within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command".

I had intended on staying with the Navy and fulfilling my obligation.  However, I had many difficulties in boot camp and failed.  I was sent to the " pass program".  While I was in this program all we had to do was say why we were there and turn in a collage.  This program didn't help me.  Once I returned to my division my self-esteem was still very low and I continued to fail the exams given.  I tried to ask my petty officer if I may see a Counselor or chaplain but he wouldn't let me get a word in.  I tried to get help with this and was ignored.  I felt that the Navy didn't care what happened to me.  So I left.  I went to stay with my father.  He said he would take care of me and that I belong with him and that the Navy stuff didn't matter.  While I was with my father he talked me into buying a car and getting all these credit cards.  I subsequently got in an argument with my father about his current wife and I threatened to give his address to my mother so he could begin to pay child support.  The following day I returned to the Training Center.  I later discovered my father had forged my name a used the credit cards charging them up.  I asked him to pay the cards and return the truck but he refused.  I have never felt so betrayed by my father.

Since, being released from the Navy I have sought counseling for my low self -esteem and depression.  I now know that my ability to serve was impaired not only by youth, but also by my mental impairment.  All through my school years I was in a "special education classes".  I had no idea that I was any different then the next student, but I was.  I truly wanted to serve my country and tried but just couldn't or wasn't able to due to in large part due to my aptitude scores and level of education.  I feel I should have been given a medical discharge.  If a mental health professional had evaluated me I feel I would have been recommended for medical discharge based on my mental capabilities.  I was never given that option.

I continue to be a good citizen and am currently enrolled in the California Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, which is helping me and teaching me to become self-sufficient to the best of my abilities.  I look forward to be self-supporting and learn a new trade.

I respectfully ask the Discharge Review Board to honor my request.

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant (4 pages)
Copy of DD Form 214
Reference Letter from T_ K. P_, Marriage & Family Therapist dated June 23, 2002
Letter from R_ L. R_, Veterans Service Representative dated September 24, 2002  

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990820 - 990920	COG
	Active:  USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990921		Date of Discharge:  000526

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  04  22
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  NMA

Highest Rate:  FR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  *NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  134

*No marks available
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:

000105:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Officer in Charge's non-judicial punishment of 000105 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence from 991120 until 991220.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000105:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on or about 991120 until on or about 991220 (30 days/S).
Award: Forfeiture of $207.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days (suspended).  No indication of appeal in the record.

000503:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 000106 until on or about 000419 (104 days/S).
Award: Forfeiture of $217.00 for 7 days, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000505:	Applicant notified 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.

000505:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

000508:	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.

000509:	Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, authorized 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 20000526 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 1-3:  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  While he may feel that his family problems and low self esteem were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service.  His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions thus substantiating the misconduct.  It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.  In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.  An upgrade to honorable conditions would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.  For the Applicant’s edification, Sailors with similar service records normally receive a discharge characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 

Issue 4:  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

Issue 5:  The Applicant requested that the reason for his discharge be changed to “honorable.”  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The service record clearly documents the pattern of misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate

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.   At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.  Relief denied.

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 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