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

 ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00234

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021122, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or 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 20031017.  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 stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“Dear DRB:
My discharge was inequitable because I did not get discharged due to the pattern of misconduct when I served for the U.S. Navy.  I got discharged because I no longer wanted to remain in the Navy.

1.	I did not get the rate I hoped for when I joined a corpsman.  And it wasn’t due to ASVAB score; I was told women weren’t being excepted into that rate.  I was upset that’s discrimination! Instead I got a rate I did not like at all.  A deck seaman.  I was told I could become a corpsman soon after.  But couldn’t at least not for 2 years.  Therefore, I was very unhappy with all of that.
2.	.  I had become an Alcoholic which as you can see by my service record is the sole reason for my pattern of misconduct (underage drinking, cause for UA & disobeying a lawful order) and even after a treatment program, I was unable to stop drinking.  Partly due to the duty station location and other circumstances.
3.  I had found out that I was pregnant and the father did not want to be involved and was leaving the duty station.  I didn’t know what I was going to do.
4.  I was on restriction and told I was going to CCU, but at that point I really couldn’t and didn’t want to.  I thought getting discharged would be the best choice at that point due to all of the above and many circumstances and personal issues.  I wish I could have continued my service.  If the circumstance would have been different, I would have possibly.

The following issues are other reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable (preferably) or at least General.

1:  my record of NJP’S/Article 15’s indicates only isolated or minor offenses.  Nothing serious.  And mostly all related to my alcoholism.
2.  my record of AWOL/UA was only one minor isolated offense.  And was also due to my Alcohol problem.
3.  personal problems impaired my ability to serve.
4.  my ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity slightly.
5.  my use of Alcohol impaired my ability to serve.
6.  my enlistment rate and options were not satisfied.  I felt cheated.
7.  I tried to serve and wanted to, but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to.

I honestly just believe under all of the circumstances, it just didn’t work out for me.  But that doesn’t mean I didn’t try to serve for the U.S. Navy Honorably the problem in the Navy didn’t begin till I was stationed in Guam and I found all there was to do was drink alcohol.  I feel I deserve a Honorable discharge.  I did my best, just shouldn’t have let alcohol control me the way I did.  I voluntarily went to treatment.  Tried my best to stay out of trouble.  Seems trouble due to the alcohol would find me. I almost wish I could do it over.  I learned a lot and grew up a lot.  I think I’d make a lot better decisions now.  I don’t think I acted dishonorably.  I served well even when on restriction.  I followed the rules.  Alcohol wasn’t effecting me.  My commanding officer wanted me to stay in the Navy, he offered to just send me to CCU.  But I made the decision I thought was best.  He just granted it!  Thank you.”
   
Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	990209 - 990222	COG
	Active:  USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  990223		Date of Discharge:  000405

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  01  12
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.00 (1)	Behavior:  1.00 (1)		OTA:  1.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

990819:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful general regulation, by consuming alcoholic beverages under the age of 20.
	Award: Restriction to the limits of USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40) for 60 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

990916:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (You are in violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:  This offense involves failure to obey a general regulation, by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages under the age of 20 year old.  If you continue to engage in misconduct your service record may reflect a pattern of misconduct as described in MILPERSMAN 1910-140), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning (DATE EXTRACTED FROM CO'S MESSAGE). 

991201:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Award: Restriction for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000314:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (11 Specifications), Spec 1: Did on or about 0645 hours, 000131, without authority absent himself from her unit, to wit: USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40), located at Apra Harbor, Guam, and did remain so absent until on or about 0830, 000131; Spec 2: Did on or about 000207, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness Training; Spec 3: Did on or about 000208, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness Training; Spec 4: Did on or about 000209, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness Training; Spec 5: Did on or about 000210, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 6: Did on or about 0645, 000211, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 7: Did on or about 000228, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 8: Did on or about 000229, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 9: Did on or about 000301, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 10: Did on or about 000202, without authority, fail to go to her appointed place of duty to wit: Mandatory Physical Readiness; Spec 11: Did on or about 0600 hours, 000312, without authority absent herself from her unit, to wit: USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40), located at Apra Harbor, Guam, and did remain absent until on or about 0650 hours, 000313.
	Award: Restriction to the limits of USS FRANK CABLE (AS-40) for 60 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000315:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (You are in violation of the UCMJ, 86.  This offense involved an Unauthorized Absence.  This is unacceptable.  If you continue to engage in misconduct, your service record may reflect misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as described in MILPERSMAN 1910-140), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000316:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 0705 hours, 000315, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Restricted Muster; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by OM2 R_ Z_, to wit: To leave the Polarisville berthing trailer and stay within the inter-compound, and order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about 000315, fail to obey the same; Spec 2: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer, USS FRANK CABLE's Restriction Orders dated 000314, to wit: Not be in any berthing from Reveille to Taps, except for SIQ, Sundays and Holidays, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about 000315, fail to obey the same by staying in the berthing area and taking a shower.
Award: Restriction for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000317:	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.

000317:	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 

000317:	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.

000321:	Commander Submarine Group 7 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 20000405 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).

Issues 1 through 4.  The Board found that the Applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment.  A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  While the Applicant may feel that her dissatisfaction with her rating, pregnancy, alcohol dependence, youth and immaturity were factors that contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her 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 occurred 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, 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, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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