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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY    

 ex-ADAA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00284

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20041130.  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 discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050727.  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

No issues were submitted by the 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)	960622 - 970617	COG
	Active:  None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970618		Date of Discharge:  000920

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  03  03
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  42

Highest Rate:  ADAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.50 (2)		Behavior:  1.00 (2)		OTA:  2.50

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  MUC

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:

981006	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article of 123a; making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

990126:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Dereliction of duty; Violation of UCMJ, Article 113:  Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout.
	Award: Forfeiture of $231.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

000721:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:  Failure to obey an order or regulation, violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  Debt, dishonorably failing to pay.
Award: Forfeiture of $263.00 pay per month for 7 days (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

000721	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article of 92, violation of UCMJ, Article 134), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

000808:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

000808:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with qualified counsel, elected to waive all rights.

000814:	Officer in Charge, Strike Fighter Wing Pacific Detachment, Fallon, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions due a Pattern of Misconduct and Commission of a Serious Offense.  Commanding Officer in charge comments:  “Airman Apprentice E_ (Applicant) has been a burden to this command and the Navy since reporting onboard in March 1998.  Prior to his first NJP he went to XOI for being UA, it was dismissed at that level and he was given Extra Military Instruction to correct his deficiency.  Shortly thereafter, he was charged with Articles 92 and 113.  ADAA E_ (Applicant) seems to only adhere to the Navy Core Values for a short period of time.  He has been counseled on numerous occasions for his failure to pay just debts, uniform violations, and was placed in a open bay barracks for consistently failing room inspections.  Since January 2000, Airman Apprentice E_ (Applicant) misused his government credit card and to date has still not paid the remaining balance after receiving full liquidation from TAD travel.  It is with my strongest recommendation that ADAA E_ (Applicant) be administratively separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.”

000822:	Commander, Strike Fighter Wing, U.S. Pacific Fleet, recommended to Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station, Lemoore, ADAA J_ L. E_ (Applicant) administrative separation.

000828:	Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station, Lemoore, 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 20000920 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).  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 (B and C).

The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The Board reviewed the Applicant’s records and determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. The record documents significant negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct and performance of duty that outweighed the positive aspects of his military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by:
•	2 retention warnings for:
o	Violations of UCMJ Articles 123a (making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds)
o	 Article 92 (failure to obey an order) 
o	Article 134 (failure to pay debt).  
•	2  nonjudicial punishment proceedings for:
o	 Violations of UCMJ Articles 92; 2 specs (dereliction of duty and failure to obey an order or regulation)
o	 Violations of UCMJ Articles 113 (misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout)
o	 Violations of UCMJ Articles 134 (failure to pay debt). 

 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 following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.  

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 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 5420.174D 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.

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