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

   ex-MSSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00085

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031017.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040712.  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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “In January 1995, I received an other than honorable discharge from the United States Navy.  During that time in my life, I was young and uncertain of my future.  I was recently married and felt a tremendous amount of pressure from my uncertainties.  During my service to the Navy, I was the sole provide of my home.  My young wife was completing her undergraduate degree and was unable to work.  I wanted to do the honorable thing about my life, but was uncertain of what that consisted of.  Therefore, I would act out at work; arrive to muster later than required; no prided displayed in my uniform, in other words, I acted immaturely.  I took no pride in my position as a Mess Management Specialist.  Being that I was young and naïve, I did not know where to go or who to talk to; I felt the burden of being a man, a husband and a serviceman all at the same time.  The pressure of military life became too much for me.  I began to lash out at my family; defy my superiors on the job; and remained a “loner.”  Because of the constant pressure I felt, I found myself without a honorable military career and a broken marriage.”

Issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Veterans of Foreign Wars):

2.  “Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application.  His records were reviewed on April 29, 2004 and the following comments are hereby submitted

We concur with the Applicant’s contentions that his discharge be upgraded.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful consideration and requests the Applicant’s discharge be reviewed for upgrade to General Discharge.”

Documentation

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

Statement, unsigned and undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR		901117 - 910901	COG	To active duty
	Active:   USNR		910902 - 930902	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  930903		Date of Discharge:  950106

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  04
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  39

Highest Rate:  MSSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.80 (1)	Behavior:  3.80 (1)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC, BER, NDSM, SSDR, SASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

940901:	Retention warning for fraudulent enlistment notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940610:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630-1000, 940610.

940702:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 940702.

940706:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0630, 930706 (4 days/surrendered).

940802:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct on 940520.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  Forfeiture of $100.00 for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 10 days suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940802:	Retention Warning from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71):  Advised of deficiency (Disorderly conduct.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940911:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0500, 940911.

940912:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0930, 940912 (1 day/surrendered).

940915:	Vacate suspended forfeiture, restriction and extra duty awarded at CO’s NJP dated 940802, due to continued misconduct.

940915:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence 0400-0605, 940823, (2) Unauthorized absence from 0630, 940828 to 0630, 930829 (1 day), (3) Unauthorized absence from 0630-0715, 940909, (4) Unauthorized absence from 0500-0640, 940910, (5) Fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: work center muster on 0500, 940911.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 40 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

941013:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Fail to go on 1600, 940927, (2) Fail to go on 0730, 941001.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 20 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

941101:	USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

941101:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

941104:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

941117:	BUPERS 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 19950106 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.  When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 seven violations of Article 86 and one violation of Article 134.  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.

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his immaturity and “the burden of being a man, a husband and a serviceman all at the same time.”  While he may feel that his personal problems were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief on this basis is denied.

Issue 2.  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.  There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.  The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.  Therefore, relief is 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, Change 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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