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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

  ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00709

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050322.  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.
In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in Washington DC.   Applicant advised the Board he wanted to attend a personal appearance hearing.  Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060315.  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 3 to 2  that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
 
“ I respectfully request that my “other than honorable” discharge from October 12, 1990, be changed to a “general discharge under honorable conditions.” I have attached my comments and pertinent information to this application. 

“Thank you for your consideration.”

          S___ A___ E___, Applicant

The Applicant has listed other additional issues in this application.

Dear Honorable Men and Women of  The United States Armed Forces, 
My name is S___ A___ E___, and I am writing you regarding my military discharge from the US Navy on October 12, 1990. On this date I received an “Other Than Honorable” discharge.

Now that many years have passed and I have sought to live a responsible and prudent life, I respectfully request that you revoke this discharge and grant me a “General Discharge under Honorable conditions”.

I am not only requesting this for my personal and emotional well being, but also because I believe this discharge was unjustly given and that there could have been a better way of dealing with my unfortunate situation.

 I have spent many years trying to forget the events which led to my discharge and the unnecessary abuse of power I was struck with.  But now, hopefully with more age and understanding, I can clearly express the events which took place without tainting my account with the anger and resentment I had in earlier years.

Out of respect for you time, I will keep my account as brief as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.    
 
    Sincerely  yours,
    S___ A___ E___,

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Statement of Explanation (12 pages) May 7, 2004
Photograph
SPA-ntaneous Relaxation Article
Reference Letter dated June, 2004
Reference Letter dated November 18, 2003
Resume (3 pages)
Certificate of Completion from Utah College of Massage Therapy dated March 26, 2000
Transcript from Utah College of Massage Therapy dated April 23, 2001 (Copy)
Letter of Congratulation dated June 5, 2001
Certificate of Completion (Crowd Management and Passenger Service Safety Training) dated September 7, 2002
Certificate of Attendance dated October 14, 2002
Certificate of Attendance dated August 31, 2002
Thank you Letter for Outstanding Customer Service dated June 2, 1995
Customer Satisfaction Letter dated June 12, 1995 
Poem by Applicant         

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880517 - 881211	COG
	Active:   None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  881212		Date of Discharge:  901012

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01 10 01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  45

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.30 (2)		Behavior:  2.80 (2)		OTA:  2.55

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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

900413: 	Applicant referred to Mental Health Clinic Groton Naval Hospital, after admitting to having suicidal ideations. Assessed as having mixed personality disorder (borderline with narcissistic features). The clinical psychologist stated that the Applicant is “ Unlikely to adjust to the Navy 

and can manifest self destructive behavior under continued stress!” Recommended for administrative separation.	

900423:	The attending clinical psychologist assessed that there is no major mental illness and that “ he is competent and fully responsible for his behavior”.  He further states that the Applicant “will require much supervision and non non-medical counseling to perform at a minimal level.” Recommends administrative separation if Applicant’s performance continues to deteriorate.	

900802:	Applicant referred to the Medical Department of the PCU West Virginia (SSBN 736) by supervisors, after being seen with a large culinary knife and displaying hostile and threatening behavior. The assessment concluded that the Applicant was not suitable for naval service.

900804:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct, violation of UCMJ Article 117: Provoking speaking and gestures.
	Award:  CCU for 30 days, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900821:	Applicant released from Correctional Custody and returned to his command due to unsuitability for continued participation.

900824:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specs), Spec 1: In that SA E__, who knew of his duties at Correctional Custody Unit Sub Base New London, on or about 1055, 900820, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to comply with CCU regulations 1, 2, 3, 6, as it was his duty to do; Spec 2: In that SA E__, who knew of his duties at Correctional Custody Unit Sub Base New London, on or about 0550, 900821, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to comply with CCU regulations 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, and 26, as it was his duty to do.
	Award:  Oral reprimand, reduction to E-1, extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900828:	Clinical Psychologist Evaluation: Diagnosis: Axis I: Not warranted, but that there was evidence of a personality disorder incorporating mixed features.  Recommended administrative separation should he continue to experience problems. 

900829:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and sustained pattern of misconduct. Commanding Officer comments “ SR Echols, on two separate occasions, has committed a serious infraction of the UCMJ.” He has repeatedly demonstrated his 

unreliability and has either threatened with bodily harm or failed to follow lawful orders.”  He further states “due to his bringing discredit upon the naval service, I recommend A discharge under other than honorable conditions.” 

900910:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

900925:	CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19901012 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

The Applicant contends that the discharge was “unjustly given”. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Specifically, the Applicant alleged that his other than honorable discharge was the result of an “unnecessary abuse of power”.  The record contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by government or anyone involved in the administrative 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 regular in all respects.  .  

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, 2 non-judicial punishment proceedings for violations of Article 91 (insubordinate conduct), Article 92 (2 Specs of dereliction in the performance of his duties), and Article 117 (Provoking speeches and gestures) of the UCMJ. Violations of Articles 91 and 92 are considered serious offenses by the UCMJ. 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 denied

The Applicant states” now that many years have passed and I have sought to live a responsible and prudent life”. 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. The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the re-characterization 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.  After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.  Relief denied.

The Applicant further states that the Medical Officer in charge of psychological testing told him “ that he was going to recommend an administrative discharge…a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions”. The separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual.  In accordance with regulation, when separation processing is warranted for any reason in addition to personality disorder (convenience of the government), dual or multiple processing is required.  The Applicant was multiple processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  

Although the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 19900828. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The separation authority determined misconduct – commission of a serious offense most clearly described the reason for discharge.  No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged.  To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

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 
A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective 
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91 for insubordinate conduct, Article 92 dereliction of duty, Article 117 provoking speeches and gestures if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

E.  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