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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-AEAR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00440

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060131.  The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061206.  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 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 and the attached letter:

“DEAR DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD: THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE THE REASON I BELIEVE MY DISCHARGE AND REENLISTMENT CODE SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS.  MY AVERAGE CONDUCT AND PROFICIENCY MARKS WERE PRETTY GOOD, AND AFTER THE START OF MY COUNSELING MY MARKS IMPROVED 100%.  THAT WAS THE START OF A NEW ME.  I HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION, FOR REPRESENTING THE NAVY ON THE ALL-MARINE BASKETBALL TEAM, SEVERAL WORKING PARTIES, SHIPS MOVEMENT SUPPORT TEAM, AND SPECIAL SQUADRON FUNCTION.  THERE WERE OTHER ACTS OF MERITS, THERE WAS NOTHING I WOULDN’T DO FOR A SHIPMATE.  I WAS SO CLOSE TO FINISHING MY TOUR THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO GIVE ME A OTHER THAT HONORABLE DISCHARGE.  SEEING A COUNSELING MADE ME CONFRONT MY PROBLEMS AND WHY I WAS HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE.  I WAS DEALING WITH A LOT OF CHILDHOOD ANGER AND EMOTIONS FROM BEING LEFT TO TAKE CARE OF MYSELF, AND 2 YOUNGER SIBLINGS.  I HAD TO ACT LIKE AN ADULT WHEN I WAS JUST A CHILD.  STILL BEING MENTALLY YOUNG ALSO, I MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES.  I DIDN’T HAVE ANY ADULTS TO TELL ME WHAT WRONG AND WHAT WAS RIGHT.  AND I HAD TO TAKE CARE OF US BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, SO I DID NOT KNOW HOW TO REACT TO CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT NAVY BROUGHT TO ME.  IT WAS OTHER FAMILY ISSUES THAT OCCURRED DURING MY ENLISTMENT THAT MADE THINGS REALLY HARD TO DEAL WITH.  THE DEATH OF MY AUNT REALLY TOOK ME IN A DOWN HILL RIDE, SHE WAS ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE I FELT REALLY LOVED ME.  I HAVE BEEN A GOOD CITIZEN SINCE DISCHARGE, I NEVER BEEN ANY TROUBLE CIVILIAN WISE.  MY RECORD OF NJP’S/ARTICLE 15’s INDICATES ONLY ISOLATED OR MINOR OFFENSES.  I THINK THE TIME OF MY ENLISTMENT I WAS STILL TO YOUNG, SO MY ACTIONS WERE DUE TO IMMATURITY.  I HAVE DONE A LOT OF GROWING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.  I JUST HOPE THE BOARD CAN ALLOW ME TO SHOW MY GROWTH.  WHEN I STARTED MY CHANGE BEFORE GETTING OUT, I DON’T THINK ANYONE WANTED TO GIVE ME A CHANCE.  I WAS TOLD IF I JUST SIGN OFF ON THE DISCHARGE PAPERS INSTEAD OF GOING TO AN ADMINSEP BOARD, I WOULD RECEIVE A GENERAL DISCHARGE.  I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY DISCHARGE.  I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY DISCHARGE AND RE-CODE CHAANGED TO REENTER THE MILITARY TO SHOW WHAT KIND OF SAILOR I CAN BE, AND TO MAKE UP FOR THE TIME I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN MYSELF.  ALL I ASK FROM THE BOARD IS TO CONSIDER GIVEN ME ANOTHER CHANCE TO BETTER MY LIFE AND THE LIFE OF MY SISTER.

Respectfully, 
[signed]
A_, M_ D. (Applicant)”

Documentation

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

Character Reference Ltr from F_ L. M_, dtd January 5, 2006
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record for the period of 000901 to 010228 (2 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19990721 - 19990829	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19990830		Date of Discharge:  20020507

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  08  08  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  3 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  35

Highest Rate:  AEAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.3 (3)		Behavior:  2.3 (3)		OTA:  2.29

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Battle “E” Ribbon (2), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (1), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

000830:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
	Counseling for UA, disrespect and unauthorized guest at the barracks.  [Extracted from NAVPERS 1626/7, Report and Disposition of Offense(s) dated 020129.]

010914:	Psychological evaluation at Medical Department, Mental Health Division.
	IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: The is a 20 year old single African/Latino American female AEAN/USN/AD with 2 years I month military service and 5 months stationed at VP-9 Hawaii who was referred by Dr./LT.  B_ (Flight Surgeon) for psychological evaluation.  Pt was initially seen for difficulty getting to sleep and remaining awake for “8 days.  It was also determined that she was consuming a significant amount of alcohol.  Pt reported, to Dr.  B_, experiencing very violent dreams in which she is the perpetrator of violence directed towards co-workers.  These dreams “frighten” her and interfere with her sleep.  In addition, questions have been raised as to whether she is a reliable historian in regards to the frequency and amount of alcohol she reportedly consumes.
	HISTORY OF PRESENTING PROBLEM Refer to Counseling and Assistance Center, Diego Garcia Counselor’s Assessment report for details of Pt’s alcohol use history.  According to the DSM-IV Screening Checklist Pt does meet criteria for alcohol dependence with physiological dependence.  Although Pt may be exaggerating the amount and frequency of alcohol use, she is stilled viewed as meeting the criteria for tolerance, loss of control, using more alcohol than intended, and spending an excessive amount of time involving the use of alcohol.
	Sleep difficulties and violent dreams may have the same etiology.  During middle teen years Pt reports involvement in a host of dangerous activities as well as instances of “almost being killed three times.” She has experienced situations and events, which involved actual threatened death or serious injury to the physical integrity of self and others.  During those times her response involved intense fear, helplessness, and horror.  As a result of the above traumatic “street life” experiences she has recurrent and distressing dreams of a violent nature.  In addition, at times she feels like the events were recurring and she becomes physiologically and psychologically upset when exposed to internal or external aspects of the past traumatic events.  She also avoids conversations, thoughts, people, places, and activities associated with the traumatic events.  She acknowledges having restricted range of affect, a sense of a foreshortened future, feelings of estrangement from others, significant anger/rage, she tends to behave in a hypervigilent manner, and she has an exaggerated startle response.
	IMPRESSION: Diagnostic interview in corroboration with psychological testing, CAAC Assessment, and Dr.  B_’s work up reveals that Pt’s alcohol use meets DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence with physiological dependence.  Pt most probably has exaggerated the amounts of alcohol she reportedly consumes; however, she is still drinking alcoholically and needs IOP ASAP.  In addition, she meets DSM-IV criteria for Post traumatic Stress Disorder.  Given her pre-military lifestyle then she is at high risk for continued interpersonal conflicts and occasional acting out episodes along with excessive use of alcohol in an effort to medicate herself from having to experience painful emotions.  Patients with similar backgrounds characterized by violence, excessive alcohol use, and traumatic experiences will require intensive psychotherapy.  In my professional opinion Pt should be initially treated for alcohol dependence then referred to Psychiatry for treatment of PTSD.  There is no evidence of psychosis or major depression, however, if Pt’s claims of remaining awake for even 2-3 days without sleeping is correct then further assessment for bi-polar disorder should be conducted but not until completion of her Alcohol treatment.
	AXIS I:  Alcohol Dependence with physiological dependence.
	Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
	Rule out Bi-polar disorder.
	AXIS II:  Rule out Personality disorder NOS with antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic features.
	RECOMMENDATION:
	1. Fit for full duty.
	2. Refer to an Alcohol Treatment Facility for IOP.
	3. Following completion of TOP refer Pt to Psychiatry for further evaluation, treatment, and disposition planning.
	4. Point of contact is Dr./CDR H_.

011001:	Medical evaluation at Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA by G_ A. V_, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Licensed Independent Practitioner.
	This 20 year old, single, African American/Hispanic, female, active duty, E3/AEAN, VP-9 Unit 25447 FPO AP 96601, with 2 years, 2 months continuous active service, was referred for treatment to the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA.
	Initial diagnosis:
	Alcohol dependence
	Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
	Rule out Bipolar disorder
	Rule out Personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic features

011019:	Medical evaluation at Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department, Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA by G_ A. V_, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Licensed Independent Practitioner.
	Final Diagnosis:
	Alcohol dependence
	Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
	Rule out Bipolar disorder
	Personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial, narcissistic and histrionic features
	Recommendation for aftercare/continuing care:
	1.  AEAN A_(Applicant) should meet with Command DAPA on a weekly basis.  AEAN A_ should attend 3 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings (including a women’s meeting) per week.
	2. AEAN A_ should attend a minimum of 24 aftercare groups.  The Command DAPA should schedule the aftercare group with the appropriate area site that provides this service.
	3. AEAN A_ should attend anger management at the local Fleet Family Support Center.
	Referrals/Consults for additional services:
	1. Patient is to follow-up at Fleet Mental Health Unit for PTSD, Personality Disorder and to rule out Bipolar disorder.

011108:	Medical Evaluation at Health Services Department, Navy Support Facility, Diego Garcia by S_ G_, LT MSC USNR, Staff Psychologist.
	Pt seen today at HSD and was briefed on the following (1) Aftercare requirements of SARD (CAAC, AA) as well as potential consequences of becoming a treatment failure - (ADSEP with possible OTH discharge) (2) Available Resources on DG (CAAC counselor and regularly scheduled AA meetings) (3) Anger Management class via GSE1 W_ (CAAC) as well as course provided by Family Service Center from Yokosuka NH in about 3 weeks.  Pt aware of long-term consequences of becoming a treatment failure and stated her understanding of this issue clearly and with no reservation.  Pt was given deadline of 1600 this day 011108.  Pt is also aware Mental Health Services are available on DG as well as when she returns to homeport in one month.  Pt denied any imminent suicidal or homicidal ideation at time of this meeting,

020106:	Applicant to unauthorized absence on 020106.  [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 29.]

020108:	Applicant from unauthorized absence on 020108 (2 days).

020219:	Patrol Squadron Nine Report Chit:  Details of offense(s):  Charge: Unauthorized absence.  Specification: on 020219 AN A_(Applicant) failed to report to work.  She called AM3 S_ at approximately 0040, stating she had no transportation to work.

020301:	Forfeiture of pay, restriction and reduction in pay grade awarded at NJP on 020301 vacated.

020301:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: absence without leave.
	Specification: In that AN A_(Applicant), did on or about 0715, 020219, without authority and with intent to avoid returning to the Squadron at the prescribed time, absent herself from Patrol Squadron Nine, and did remain so absent until on or about 2230, 020219.
	Award:  Forfeiture of 616.00 month pay for 2 months (susp for 3 mos), restriction for 60 days (susp for 3 mos), extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2 (susp for 3 mos).  No indication of appeal in the record.

020304:	Retention Warning:  [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 020507.]

020403:	Preliminary inquiry report.

020404:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: Attempted larceny.
	Specification: In that, Airman M_ D. A_(Applicant), USN, (social security number deleted), Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, did, on or about 020320, wrongfully attempt to take $801, more or less, by wrongfully claiming she was married and by such a claim obtain a Basic Housing Allowance entitled to married E-3s in the State of Hawaii.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (3 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation
	Specification 1: In that, Airman M_ D. A_, (social security number deleted), USN, Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commander R_ A. L_, USN, to wit: that she was to complete 45 days of extra duties assigned at Captain’s Mast held on 020301, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, at or near Patrol Squadron NINE, MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI, on or about 020320, fail to obey the same by wrongfully signing her extra duty log for a period of time during working hours.
	Specification 2: In that, Airman M_ D. A_, (social security number deleted), USN, Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commander R_ A. L_, USN, to wit: that she was to complete 45 days of extra duties assigned at Captain’s Mast held on 020301, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, at or near Patrol Squadron NINE, MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI, on or about 020325, fail to obey the same by wrongfully signing her extra duty log for work done as part of her usual duties, after she was told not to.
	Specification 3: In that, Airman M_ D. A_, (social security number deleted), USN, Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commander R_ A. L_, USN, to wit: that she was to complete 45 days of extra duties assigned at Captain’s Mast held on 020301, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, at or near Patrol Squadron NINE, MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI, on or about 020325, fail to obey the same by wrongfully signing her extra duty log early after she was told not to.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specs): False official statements
	Specification: In that, Airman M_ D. A_(Applicant), USN, (social security number deleted), Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, did, at or near Patrol Squadron NINE, Kaneohe Bay, HI, on or about 020320, with intent to deceive, make to Personnelman 1st Class E_ H_, USN, an official statement, to wit: that Airman A_ was married, which statement was false in that the marriage license presented by Airman A_ was false, and was then known by the said Airman A_ to be so false.
	Specification 2: In that, Airman M_ D. A_(Applicant), USN, (social security number deleted), Patrol Squadron NINE, on active duty, did, at or near Patrol Squadron NINE, Kaneohe Bay, HI, on or about 020320, with intent to deceive, make to Command Master Chief D_ M. M_, USN, an official statement, to wit: that Airman A_ was married, which statement was false, and was then known by the said A_ A_ to be so false.
	Award:  Reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.  Appealed 020414.  Appeal denied 020422.

020404:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable by reason of misconduct: pattern of misconduct.

020404:	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.

020507:	Commanding Officer, Patrol Squadron 9, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “AEAR A_(Applicant)’s pattern of misconduct make her unsuitable for further Naval service.  Her three non-judicial punishments in less than a two-year period are unacceptable and are detrimental to good order and discipline at Patrol Squadron 9.  Additionally, she has received numerous counseling chits, report chits and XOIs.  I strongly recommend AEAR A_ be separated immediately from the U.S. Navy with an Other Than Honorable discharge.  Enclosure (1) and (2) are provided to facilitate administrative processing.

020507:	Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Force, Pacific, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020507 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than 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 believes her discharge should be upgraded because her average conduct and proficiency marks were pretty good, and after the start of her counseling her marks improved one hundred percent.  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 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 one retention warning, 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 80 (Attempted larceny), 86 (Unauthorized absence), and 107 (False official statements) of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service.  Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that her problems in the Navy can be attributed to her difficult childhood experiences.  While she may feel that her childhood anger and emotions from being left to take care of herself and her 2 younger siblings was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions.  Relief denied.

The Applicant states “I think the time of my enlistment I was still to young, so my actions were due to immaturity.”  .  The statement contained in the application that the Applicant’s admission was due to her youth and immaturity was found to be insufficient justification to warrant a change in the reason for discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant requested her discharge and RE code be changed so that she can reenter the military.  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.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 107 (False official statements).

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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