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

  ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00169

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021107, 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 20031003.  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/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

1.  “Dear Sir or mama, I now know that my early life experiences did not prepare me mentally to take on the responsibilities of a sailor in the armed forces at that time.  I did make an effort to adjust – I served three of four years and did progress.  My problems that lead-up to my separation basically started when I met my first wife R_ S_.  She became more than a marital partner to me.  I had much insecurity at that stage of my life.  Unfortunately she to had a troubled childhood.  She had committed crimes of a financial nature before we met that caught-up with her.  I became convinced that she was sorry and wanted to change so I helped her with some of her legal issues.  I realize now that most people would have filed for a divorce, but I made some ill choices.  I didn’t understand why I chose to help her help herself back then; I never had issues like that.  I did try to get my command involved or at least aware of what I was doing.  I was denied a hardship sep. due to lack of documentation of these issues.  The violations of the UCMJ, that are in my service record, were heard at mast and closed prior to my requesting to speak with my captain in regards to an early separation.  They said it would be a general discharge for three years of service and also because of the nature of my violations.  They said after the fact that they didn’t know that the ARC failure in conjunction with other violations would automatically result in a OTH.  I’m not saying in anyway that this was done intentionally on my commands part.  I believe they wanted to put this issue to rest w/o satisfying Captain F_’s request.  I have no ill feelings towards any officers or enlisted.  My old Div. Officer, the then Ensign P_ even told me to request an upgrade the last time we spoke.  I just never had the confidence to ask, because of the nature of what happened, until now.  I am pleased to add however, that last year I did receive a waiver to enlist in the National Guard.  I am very proud that I was given a chance to finish what I owed if you will.  That’s how I see it.  I have received peace officer training for them – this is separate from the document attached in regards to corrections, and have been serving on the homeland security force since Jan 22, 02, and I have recently extended.  My unit is currently conducting an unofficial deployment S.R.P.  This is described as making copies of vital records and updating personnel files.  I don’t know what the future holds as far as how long my mission status will last of if I will be deployed under title 10 which superseded my current status, but I will be ready.  I didn’t know the victims of the attack, but I feel that as a man, with military experience, I owe them and their families the task of doing my part to make us all more secure.  Thank you

Note: The documents are just to show that I have tried to become the best that I can be over the years.”

Documentation

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

Army Guard Identification card
California commercial driver license
Letter from Headquarters, California Army National Guard, dated October 11, 2001
Request for Waiver, NCB Form 22-3, undated
Memorandum for new member, undated
Notification Memorandum, dated September 26, 2002
Personal Action Request, dated September 26, 2002
Memorandum for Employer, dated February 4, 2002
Notice of Background Clearance, dated June 28, 2001
Letter from Department of Corrections, Northern Selection Center, undated
Letter fro California State Personnel Board, dated August 2, 2001
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Recruiting Production Worksheet, CAL ARNG Form 350-11-R
Applicant’s resumé
Thirteen pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter from State of California, Office of the Adjutant General, Orders 042-566, dated February 20, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19860923 - 19870803	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19870804		Date of Discharge:  19901024

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  02  21	Does not exclude lost time
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  32

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.35 (4)	Behavior:  3.00 (4)		OTA:  3.45

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, MUC, Letter of Commendation

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  2

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

870827:	Retention Warning from Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Command, Naval Training Command, San Diego, California:  post enlistment disclosure of preservice drug abuse.  Applicant was notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880513:	Retention Warning from USS BIDDLE (CG-34): Advised of deficiency (Discreditable involvement: misconduct due to a drinking in public incident in Norfolk, VA, on 880203.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

890825:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny on 890820, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly on 890820.
	Award: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA.  Forfeiture of $400 for 2 months, restriction for 24 days, extra duty for 15 days, and reduction to FA suspended for months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890915:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order.
	Dated of Offense: 890830, 890903, 890909, 890913, 890914.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 5 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900122:	Medical evaluation for alcohol found the Applicant to be alcohol dependent.  Applicant was offered Level III treatment.

900406:	Applicant terminated from treatment at ARC (no details).

900413:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent without leave on 0615, 900129 to 2217, 900131 (2 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement on 900129.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days, and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to FA.  Restriction for 15 days and reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900816:	USS BIDDLE (CG 34) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 900820.]

900816:	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.  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 900820.]

900820:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900920:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

901005:	Applicant elected not to accept treatment through the Veterans’ Administration.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19901024 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.  The Applicant states he was having personal problems involving his wife, tried to get his command involved, and was denied a hardship separation.  Additionally, he was told he would receive a General (under Honorable conditions) discharge.  The Applicant is now a member of the National Guard.

There is no evidence in the Applicant’s service record to show he attempted to get his command involved to resolve his personal problems.  There is evidence that the Applicant had preservice involvement with illegal drugs and was issued a retention warning while in RTC.  The Applicant had a total of three NJPs for; Larceny, drunk and disorderly; unauthorized absence, and missing ship’s movement; and failure to obey a lawful order.  Subsequent to the three NJPs the Applicant was terminated from ARC treatment adding alcohol rehabilitation failure to his list of violations of the UCMJ.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question.  No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of this 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 documentation to forward to the Board 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 sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.  Therefore, no relief will be granted.

The applicant is reminded that he is 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 personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), 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