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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND05-01284

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050802.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060406.  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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: 

“I D_ E. B_ Jr, USN served with the Marine Corp in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for 2 ½ years.  At the time I had a bad drinking problem.  For my General discharge I was given a Capt Mast for a DUI that occur in 1992.  I was planning on getting out on Oct 13, 1993. The Capt at that time gave me a General discharge.  At this point in time I’m a recovered alcoholic of 11 years 6 months.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19840918 – 19850113		COG
	Active:   USN 			19850114 – 19891005		HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19891006		Date of Discharge:  19931013

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  00  07  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):  

	Unauthorized absence:  9 days
	Confinement:		  30 days

Age at Entry:  28 

Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  HM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.0 (6) 		Behavior:  2.7 (6)		OTA:  3.03 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2), Navy Battle “E”, Navy Unit Commendation, Navy Expeditionary Medal, Good Conduct Award, 9mm Pistol Expert.

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

891006:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.

920828:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Applicant was in authorized absence status on Tuesday, 18 August 1992, from 0645 to 1000 when applicant failed to report to appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930222:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:  At MCB, CLNC, 30 SEP 1992, being indebted to family housing in the sum of $195.00 which amount became due and payable in 30 SEP 1992, dishonorably failed to pay such debt.
	Violation of UCMJ, Article 123a: (4 specifications).
	Specification 1: At MWR, MCB, CLNC, 23JUL92, with intent to deceive and for the payment of a past due obligation deliver to MWR a check upon Navy Federal Credit Union in the amount of $39.00, then knowing he did not have sufficient funds in the bank for payment.
	Specification 2: At Sears, Jacksonville, NC, 12JAN93, with intent to deceive and for the payment of a past due obligation deliver to Sears a check upon Navy Federal Credit Union in the amount of $192.00, then knowing he did not have sufficient funds in the bank for payment.
Specification 3: At Erotic Pets and Things, Jacksonville, NC, 12JAN93, with intent to deceive and for the payment of a past due obligation deliver to Erotic Pets and Things a check upon Navy Federal Credit Union in the amount of $31.38, then knowing he did not have sufficient funds in the bank for payment.
Specification 4: At Food Lion, Jacksonville, NC, 12JAN93, with intent to deceive and for the payment of a past due obligation deliver to Food Lion a check upon Navy Federal Credit Union in the amount of $178.61, then knowing he did not have sufficient funds in the bank for payment.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $239 per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 14 days (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

930321:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (A pattern of financial irresponsibility per CO’s NJP of 22 February 1993.  Applicant knowingly issued several checks with insufficient funds, and even issued checks from an account you previously closed.  Applicant failed to pay several just debts when they were due to the point where collection action had to be initiated by those concerned), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930321:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol per Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania Criminal Division, case number 1191 dated 23 September 1992 which found you guilty.  This is gross conduct in light of the fact that you are a recovering alcoholic), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930503:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 920503.

930511:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1515 on 930511 (9 days/apprehended).

930521:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification:  UA from 06 May-14 May 93.  Findings: Guilty.
	Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (2 specs)
	Specification 1: Did on 04 May 93 steal $200.00 from Mrs B_.  Findings: Guilty 
	Specification 2: Did on 16 May 93 wrongfully appropriate a rental car From Lo-Kost rent a car a value of $10,000.00.  Findings: Guilty 
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $543 per month (suspended for 6 months), confinement for 30 days, reduced to E-1.
	CA action 930521:  Not found in record.

930706:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for administrative discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

930706:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

930812:	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, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions).

930902:	Commanding Officer, 2d Combat Engineer Battalion, 2d Marine Division, Fleet Marine Force recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

930920:	Commanding General, 2d Marine Division, MARFORLANT, forwarded the administrative discharge package to CNP.

931005:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19931013 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions).  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).  

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his "bad drinking problem."  While he may feel that his abuse of alcohol was 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.

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 general 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 3 retention warnings and 1 nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of Articles 134, and 123a (4 specs) of the UCMJ. Additionally, the Applicant was found guilty at summary court-martial for violations of Articles 86 and 121 (2 specifications) of 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 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.  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 Naval service.  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, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle 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.  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 additional evidence related to this discharge.  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 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, dishonorably failing to pay debt, and Article 121, larceny.

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

D.  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