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

ex-FA, USN 
Docket No. ND03-01428

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030903.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040608.  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:

1.  “I, D_ K_ (Applicant), PERPOSELY GOT IN TROUBLE THREE CONSECTUTIVE TIMES AND WENT TO CAPTAINS MAST.  MY REASON FOR DOING SO, IS THAT I DIDN’T LIKE HOW OUR CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS TREATING PEOPLE ON OUR SHIP.  AT THE TIME I REALY DIDN’T CARE ABOUT THE CHARETER OF MY DISCHARGE BECAUSE I WAS FED UP WITH HARSH TREATMENT.  I DID KNOW THAT I DID NOT WANT TO GET A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.  AFTER THE THREE MAST CASES I ASKED MY SECURITY OFFICER WHAT DID I HAVE TO DO TO GET OUT WITHOUT RECEIVING A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.  HE TOLD ME DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT, I WILL TALK TO THE CAPTAIN.  I GUESS HE DID SO, AND HE TOLD ME TO JUST SHOW UP TO WORK EVERYDAY AND I WOULD BE OUT IN A MONTHS TIME.  ALL IN ALL, I ASKED FOR A DISCHARGE AFTER 3 MAST CASES AND RECEIVED IT.  TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT AT THE TIME ON THE USS PELELIU YOU WOULD RECEIVE A MISCONDUCT DISCHARGE AFTER 5 MAST CASES I HAD THREE, BUT WAS CHARGED WITH FIVE TO GET WHAT WANTED.  I REALY WANT A HONORABLE DISCHARGE, FOR A FEW BINEFITS AND LITTLE BETTER JOB CRETABILITY, AND I WOULD REALY APPREIATE IF U WOULD HELP ME OUT.

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)	000906 - 001025	COG
	Active:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  001026		Date of Discharge:  020926

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (3)	Behavior:  3.00 (3)		OTA:  2.90

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, NDSM

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:

020402:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence, a failed to obey lawful order, false official statement), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

020402:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failure to obey lawful order, violation of UCMJ Article 107:  False official, statement.
Award:  Forfeiture of $619.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.

020603:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failure, to obey other lawful written order, restricted muster.
Award:  Forfeiture of $614.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

020905:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  fail to obey regulation, to wit: wrongfully drinking alcohol under the age of 21; violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit from 020827 until 020828.
	Award: 3 days of confinement on bread and water. 

020906:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

020912:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence from unit, 020910 and 020911.
	Award:  3 days confinement on bread and water.

020919:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  FA K_’s (Applicant’s) continue misconduct is detrimental to the good order and discipline of this command.  He has had ample opportunity to start over with the support and assistance of his chain of command.  His personal behavior has consistently remained substandard without any attempts to improve.  FA K_ (Applicant) is not recommended for retention and has no potential for future Naval service.  I strongly recommend that FA K_ (Applicant) be discharged immediately from Naval service, with an Other Than Honorable characterization.

020924:	COMPHIBGRU THREE directed 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 20020926 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.  An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge 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 three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for six violations of Articles of the UCMJ, to include violations of Articles 86, 92 and 107.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.  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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until Present, 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