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

 ex-RMSR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00091

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  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 20030912.  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.  My commitment to the navy

2.  My service in Dessert Fox.  And that my own witness lied.

3.  My participation in GI Bill program

4.  If I could rejoin I would or join reserve in this crisis America is involve in.

Documentation

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

Statement from Applicant
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19961231 – 19970323		COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19970324		Date of Discharge:  19990710

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  03  17
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24				Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  8 GED			AFQT:  NFIR

Highest Rate:  RMSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMF				Behavior:  NMF		OTA:  NMF

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR. AFEM, NER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  8

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:

971022:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Driving under the influence on 970927.
	Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

971022:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Driving under the influence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

980501:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority go from appointed place of duty on 980228, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to RMSR.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

981001:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 981001.

981007:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0715, 981007 (6 days/surrendered).

981010:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 981010.

981012:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0715, 981012 (2 days/surrendered).

981209:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Promotion request denied.).

Undated:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Failure to maintain adequate funds in checking account.  Specifically, you have failed to maintain adequate funds for the following check(s) negotiated onboard USS CARL VINSON Check #109 for $100.00, dated 980904, returned 980926 for insufficient funds, and Check # 117 for $100.00, dated 980908, returned 980926 for insufficient funds.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990404:	Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Indebtedness), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

990406:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 2359,, 990401 to 2200, 990402, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): Dishonorably failing to maintain funds on 981020 and 981028, total of $20.00.
	Award: Forfeiture of $538 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990422:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation of a hotel on 990403, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully influence the actions of the CO during CO’s NJP of 990406.
	Award: Forfeiture of $480 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to RMSA.  Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 1 month.  Appealed 990512.  Appeal granted 990521.
990527:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

990604:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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 

990610:	Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO’s NJP dated 990422 due to continued misconduct.

990610:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Wrongfully failing to muster with the restricted personnel on 990608, (2) Wrongfully failing to muster with the restricted personnel on 990609.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990616:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990710 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 and 2.  The Applicant states his commitment to the Navy, his service in Desert Fox, and the fact that his witness lied are justification for an upgrade to his discharge.

What was apparent to the Board was that the Applicant’s misconduct significantly overshadowed his commendable service.  The Applicant was involved in five Non-Judicial Punishments for driving under the influence, unauthorized absence, failure to obey a lawful order, insufficient funds, wrongful appropriation of a hotel room, and wrongfully influencing actions.  These administrative actions are manpower intensive, taking valuable assets away from productive operational tasks.  In regards to the witnesses lying, the NDRB looks at the propriety and equity of the execution of the discharge process and does not re-litigate the offenses made against the Applicant during his/her service.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

Issue 3.  The Applicant lists his participation in the GI Bill program as justification for a discharge upgrade.  The NDRB does not decide eligibility for GI bill benefits.  The Applicant must contact the department of Veterans Affairs for assistance in this area.  Relief denied.

Issue 4.  The Applicant states he would join the Reserves to serve in the crisis America is currently involved in.  The NDRB does not decide who is eligible to re-enlist.  The Applicant must contact the appropriate recruiting office or head Quarters Navy Recruiting Command for assistance in this area.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of the Applicant’s discharge.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, 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 can be considered.  Examples of documents to forward to the Board for consideration of post-service accomplishments include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate).  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

He 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.  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