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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-GMGSN, USN 
Docket No. ND05-00836

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050419.  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.  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 the Washington D.C. area.  Applicant did not respond.

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/Misconduct - 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:

 “I want to have my discharge upgraded to Honorable so that I can join the National Guard and once again serve my country.  I am a licensed airframe and power plant technician and want to put my skills to use for my countries defense”

Applicant’s remarks, as stated on the application:  

“While I realize my actions as a very immature man warranted the action take by the Navy at the time of my Discharge.  I as a mature adult feel as though I owe my country.  As a Licensed A&P I have a technical skill that I Believe I can put to Great use in service or my country.  I hope in this a time of recruiting shortages that you might consider all of my masts were liberty problems and the reason I was giving such leeway was while on duty I was always 100% professional.  As a Grown man my private life is as in control as my professional life.  And that I am still very proud of my armed Forces.”

Documentation

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

None were submitted.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	850130 - 851104	COG
	Active:   USN			851105 - 890930	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  891001		Date of Discharge:  911224

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (3 month extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  77

Highest Rate:  GMG2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.44 (5)		Behavior:  3.40 (5)		OTA:  3.6

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSEM, BEA, AFEM, .38 CE

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

901016:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 900806.
	Award: Forfeiture of ½ months pay for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Restriction extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 911120.]

910227:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violation of a lawful written order on 950225.
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  Suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910227:	Retention Warning from USS MCCLUSKY (FFG-41):  Advised of deficiency (violation of a lawful written order), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910708:	Drug and Alcohol Evaluation:  Applicant appears to be dependent upon alcohol.  Recommend Applicant be referred to a Level III alcohol rehabilitation center, attend a minimum of three AA meetings per week, and referred to Family Service Center for budget counseling and be medically screened for physical dependence and receive command Level I counseling.

910724:	Alcohol screening: Applicant has been previously treated for alcohol/drug abuse.  Applicant found not physically/psychologically dependent on alcohol.  Recommended for Level I treatment.

910730:	Retention Warning from Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence, violation of an order, and a domestic dispute involving alcohol use.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
	
910731:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Alcohol abuse, one to three times a month, ashore off duty, military police on 910621.  CAAC found Applicant dependent and recommended Level III.  Physician found Applicant dependent and recommended Level I.  Commanding Officer recommended retention until EAOS and Level I, verbal warning.  Comments: Member has been in command one month.  Incident: Member had family disputes involving military police 3 times in one week.  Member was not significantly drunk in any case which would have resulted in being drunk in public.  However, the same military policeman responded in each instance and stated he had been under the influence of alcohol.

910904:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless driving on 910829 by driving a motor vehicle while drunk.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, oral reprimand, reduction to E-4.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910912:	Branch Clinic: DWI 910829.  A: (1) ETOH abuse by history.  (2) No mental illness.  P:  (1) Applicant responsible for action.  (2) Return to full duty.

910913:	Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your service record entries.  The characterization of your service may be under other than honorable conditions.

910917:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with qualified counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.  Applicant objected to separation.

911025:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

911120:	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.

911217:	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 19911224 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 desires to have his discharge upgraded to Honorable so that he can once again serve his country. 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.  A discharge with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions 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 the following:  a retention warning on 910119 for deficiencies in performance and conduct; three nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 86, Unauthorized absence, 92, Dereliction of duty, and 111, drunken or reckless driving. 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 on this basis is denied.

Additionally, the Applicant desires to have his discharge upgraded to Honorable so that he can join the National Guard and use his skills as a licensed airframe and power plant technician to defend the country.  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  

The applicant contends that he was immature but since his discharge has matured as an adult. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to this country.  Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No impropriety or inequity occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post- service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, as examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s statements concerning post-service conduct, without documented evidence, were found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged.  Relief not warranted.

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, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A 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