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

 
 ex-IT3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00073 

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041020.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge 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 discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050428. 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. “MEMBERS OF THE BOARD,

MY NAME IS C_ F_ (Applicant) (social security number deleted).  I AM SENDING THIS LETTER IN REGARD TO MY DD 214 AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH I WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE UNITED STATES NAVY.  IN WHICH I SERVED MY FULL FOUR YEARS OF ENLISTMENT.  FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE BEING FULLY RESPONSIBLE, FOR MY ACTIONS.  I AM ASKING FOR MY CASE TO BE REVIEWED BECAUSE I UNWILLINGLY RECEIVED A OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE AT MY EAOS.  I WAS TOLD BY MY COMMAND THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN, BUT I MADE SOME MISTAKES IN BAD JUDGEMENT.  IN A DIRECTION BASED ON BAD LEADERSHIP.  I HAD A HARD TIME ADJUSTING TO THE NAVY WHEN I FIRST CAME ONBOARD THE USS CORONADO IN JUNE 2000.  WITHIN 6 MONTHS I HAD MY FIRST NIP AND SEVRAL MISTAKES IN THE SAME MONTH I HAD 3 NJPS.  BUT AS I WAS TOLD SOME PEOPLE HAVE A HARDER TIME ADJUSTING THAN OTHERS.  SO AFTER THAT MY CHAIN OF COMMAND ENLISTED ME A MENTOR AND I FELL INTO RANKS.ALONG THE WAY WE GAIN A NEW LEADER IN ITCM(SW) T_ J_. WHO TOOK MY UNDER HIS WING AND FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS I HAD NO NJP INCEDENT.  BUT IN 2003 I HAD A VERY BAD SITUATION WITH MY NOW EX-WIFE, I WAS BEING FINANCIALLY AND EMOTIONALLY BEAT UP.  IT WAS NO SECRET IT WAS AFFECTING MY WORK,AND JUDGEMENT.  BY NOW MY MENTORS HAD ALL LEFT THE COMMAND AND A NEW COMMAND HAD COME ABOARD.  THEY TOOK ONE LOOK AT MY PRIOR RECORD AND BEGAN TO SINGLE ME OUT, AND THIS ALONG WITH THE MARITAL PROBLEMS I WAS NOT PREPARED TO HANDLE.  SO I SOUGHT HELP FROM MY LEADERS BUT THESE WERE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAD HELPED ME FROM HEADING DOWN THE PATH OF SELF DESTRUCTION IN 2000.  THEY ONLY TRIED TO USE MY PAST MISTAKES AS A REASON NOT TO HELP ME, AND WERE ONLY INTRESTED IN PAYING ATTENTION WHEN I MADE A WRONG TURN,NOT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO FIND A WAY.  SO I HAD NOT ONE PERSON TO TURN TO EXCEPT MY ITCM.SO AT THE END OF ROPE IN 2003 I ASKED HIM TO HELP ME BY NOW I WAS DIVORCED, BUT ‘THE DAMAGE HAD ALREADY BEEN TO ME AND I WAS ON MY WAY OUT OF THE NAVY THOUGH I WANTED TO STAY AND THOUGHT MABYE A CHANGE OF COMMAND’S WOULD HELP WE BOTH AGREED I SHOULD SEPARATE FROM THE NAVY AT THE END OF MY EAOS.  BUT ITCM(SW}J_ WAS TRANSFERRING SHORTLY BEFORE MY EAOS.  THE PERSON THAT WAS TAKING HIS POSITION HAD ALREADY LET IT BE KNOWN TO ME AND OTHERS THAT IF HE WOULD GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO CHANGE THE COMMAND’S POSITION ON GIVING ME AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE.  SO WHEN ITCM(SW) J_ LEFT HE THEN MADE THE MOVES TO MAKE SURE I WOULD NOT RECEIVE A HONORABLE DISCHARGE.  I WAS ADVISED NOT TO HAVE AN ADMIN BOARD BECAUSE THE COMMAND SAID THEY NEEDED TIME TO SEE IF THEY COULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE [HURRY UP AND WAIT] THIS AND I HAD 30 DAYS OF SERVICE LEFT SO I DID NOT SEEK AN ADMIN BOARD BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD NOT BE TREATED UNFAIRLY AND EVEN MY FORMER ITCM(SW) J_ CAME BACK TO THE COMMAND TO SPEAK ON MY BEHALF AND TO TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF THE SITUATION.  IN THE END I LEFT WITH AN OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE.  I HAVE NO EDUCATION,WAS HOMELESS FOR PART OF 2004 AND FIND MYSELF AT 22 YEARS OLD LIVING THROUGH MY MISTAKES AND I BLAME NOBODY.  BUT NOW I SEEK NOT ONLY FORGIVENESS BUT A SECOND CHANCE TO RECEIVE THE TOOLS THAT I WORKED 4 HARD, PROUD YEARS TO GET.  SO PLEASE LOOK AT THIS IN YOUR EYES AND SEE THAT WHEN MY BACK WAS AGAINST THE WALL NO ONE SHOWED ME THE WAY,BUT NOW I ONLY HOPE YOU DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THEY DID.

THANK YOU,
IT3 C_ F_ (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	991103 - 991128	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  991129		Date of Discharge:  031222

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03 11 24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  9	(GED)		AFQT:  51

Highest Rate:  IT3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.67 (3)		Behavior:  2.33 (3)		OTA:  2.83

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  30

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:

000628	Applicant reported aboard USS Coronado.

001216	Applicant to unauthorized absence 0500, 001216.

010116:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 010116 (32 days/surrendered).  Applicant’s EAOS changed to 031228.

010125:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 000930.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 31 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010125:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP held on 010125 for absenting yourself from you unit.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  Possible UOTHC. 

010222:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:
Date of offense: 010122.
	Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010222:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP held on 010222, without authority unlawfully entered a government facility.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  Possible UOTHC

010310	Applicant to unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty.

010329:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, violation of UCMJ, Article 92.
Date of offense 010310.
	Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

010329:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP held on 010329, without authority go from your appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  Possible UOTHC

011109 	Applicant married.

020314	Applicant wages garnished for child support.

030303	Applicant first failure of PRT.

030502:	Administrative Remarks: Advised of deficiency (First failure to meet physical readiness test standards (run/walk).), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

030531	Applicant Divorced.

030604	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, violation of UCMJ, Article 92.

030708:	Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (NJP held on 030604, Article 86: Unauthorized absence and Article 92: Dereliction of duties.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies.  Possible UOTHC

030724:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030724.

030725:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030725.

030731:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030731.

030801:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030801.

030807:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030807.

030808:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030808.

030814:	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030814.

030815:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030815.

030821	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030821.

030822:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030822.

030829	Applicant second failure of PRT.

030904	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030904.

030905:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030905.

030909:	Administrative Remarks: Advised of deficiency (Failure to meet physical readiness test), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

030926	Applicant to unauthorized absence 1300, 030926.

030927:	Applicant from unauthorized absence 0700, 030927.

031006:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (8 specs): Unauthorized absence.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

031007	Applicant to unauthorized absence.

031103:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 031007.
	Award: Bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

031215:	COMPHIBGRU THREE directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20031222 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).  The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1.  When the service of a member of the 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 4 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 92 and 134 of the UCMJ and 2 failures of the physical readiness program. 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 "very bad situation with my now ex-wife", as well as, a lack of support and guidance from his chain of command.  While he may feel that his marital problems and chain of command 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 denied.

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Specifically, Applicant alleged that his Commanding Officer and chain of command “single me out”, “advised not to have an admin board” and “made moves to ensure I would not receive an honorable discharge” thus resulting in his other than honorable discharge.  Additionally the applicant alleged that his chain of command failed in their responsibility to provide leadership, guidance and resources.  The record, however, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s Commanding Officer or anyone else for that matter in the discharge process.  The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary.  As such, this Board presumed that Applicant’s discharge was proper in all respects.  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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023

BOARD MEMBERS RECORD OF VOTE

NAME	CHARACTER	REASON	

Presiding Officer			

Member			

Member			

Member			

Recorder			

		Recorder’ Signature:__________________________________________

		Presiding Officer’s Signature:___________________________________