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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-FA, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00446

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060206.  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 20061214.  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.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12b, Separation Date This Period, should read:  “92  AUG  19,” Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read:  “00  10  17.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“My discharge was inequitable as I had a pre-existing bipolar condition that worsened while I was on active duty.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19910626		Date of Discharge:  19920819

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    00  10  17  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  12 day
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  18

Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  44

Highest Rate:  FR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NA*			Behavior:  NA*		OTA:  NA*

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal

* Not Available

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

910626:	Pre-service waiver for one non minor misdemeanor granted.

911002:	Pre-service waiver for three minor/non traffic misdemeanors granted.

911003:	Commenced active duty for a period of 2 years.

911023:	Medical evaluation at Recruit Evaluation Unit/Mental Health Unit, NTC Branch Medical Clinic, San Diego, CA.
	This 18 year old, single, Caucasian, male recruit was referred to REU by NAVY-AFMET.  SNR (Applicant) arrived at Recruit Training Command on 911003.
	SNR reported being 1 of 3 siblings from an intact family.  SNR’s childhood was described as didn’t like stepfather or school.  SNR denied being the victim of any abuse.  SNR had no particular problems establishing and maintaining friendships.  SNR described poor high school adjustment.  Achieved an 2.0 grade point average, did graduate from high school, reported conduct problems suspended one time, + truancy - 10th.  SNR admitted to a history of legal difficulties, 5 radar speeding tickets, failure to appear, possession alcohol 2 beers.  SNR currently maintains a good relationship with mother.  SNR reports a past psychiatric history as diagnosed with attention deficit disorder; saw counselor at age 6 due to failure to get along with stepfather (6 months - 1 year).
	Despite past history of responsibilities, Recruit wants to stay in Navy and is highly motivated.
	Recommendation:  No psychological disorder noted.

920404:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 920404.

920406:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 on 920406 (2 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 931004.

920425:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 920425.

920426:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0930 on 920426 (2 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 931004.

920506:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 920506.

920513:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1540 on 920513 (8 days/surrendered).  EAOS changed to 931004.

920519:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 specifications):  UA from appointed place of duty, to wit: extra military instruction on or about 920403, UA from unit 920404 to 920406, UA from unit 920425 to 920427, UA from unit 0700, 920504 to 0730, 920504, and UA from unit 0700, 920506 to 1640, 920514.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  Forfeiture of $350.00 for 2 months suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920519:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Art 86, UCMJ (5 offenses) - fail to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Extra military instruction; UA from unit 2 days; UA from unit 2 day; UA from unit 30 minutes; and UA from unit 9 days.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920519:	Medical referral to medical department for psychiatric screening and possible subsequent psychiatric evaluation at Fleet Mental Health.
	Pt (Applicant) is a 19 year old AD male with 6 months history of active duty service.
	Member recently has been to Captains MAST for delinquent and immature behavior.  Member has been disciplined on multiple occasions for being UA and amassing a greater then Nine hundred dollars debt with special services dept here aboard ship.
	Member appears to continue a deviant course of behavior which is impulsive and irresponsible.  Member is able to differentiate between right and wrong and is responsible for his behavior.
	Assessment/Plan: 1. Adjustment disorder.  2. Rule out oppositional deficient disorder with depressed mood.
	-Not suicidal or homicidal
	-FMH consult upon return to San Diego.
	-Fit for duty.  Responsible for his behavior.

920529:	Forfeiture of pay of $350.00 for 2 months awarded at NJP on 920519 vacated due to continued misconduct.

920529:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (13 specs):
	Specifications: Failed to go at time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted men’s muster on or about 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 May 1992, and fail to go at time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted in lieu of arrest muster.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months, confinement on bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920612:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (7 specifications): Fail to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty on or about 0530, 920529, 1845, 920531, 0530, 920601, 0700, 920601, 0630, 920604, 0630, 920606, and 0530, 920611
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specifications): Disobey Navy regulations, to wit: possessing alcohol on board a naval vessel, and wearing civilian clothes while in a restricted status.
	Award:  Confinement on bread and water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

920621:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):  UA fm appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted men’s muster 1845, 920618, 0530, 920619, 0530, 920620.
	Charge II:  violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties in that he negligently failed to remain awake on the aft sounding and security watch 920615.
	Finding: to Charge and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Confinement for 30 days.
	CA action 920707:  Sentence approved and ordered executed.
	
920622:	Applicant received for confinement at NAVCONBRIG Miramar.

920704:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more UCMJ punishments during current enlistment, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the Article 92, UCMJ, offense committed during current enlistment.

920710:	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.

920713:	Commanding Officer, USS RANGER (CV 61), recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more UCMJ punishments during current enlistment and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by the Article 92, UCMJ, offense committed during current enlistment.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “SNM (Applicant) did commit misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.  SNM is considered to have no potential for further useful naval service.  Page 13 warning of 920519 was violated by SNM’s NJP of 920529, 920612, and SCM on 920621.  Recommend SNM be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge.”

920721:	Applicant found medically qualified for separation.

920730:	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 19920819 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
 
The Applicant states, “My discharge was inequitable as I had a pre-existing bipolar condition that worsened while I was on active duty.”  The Applicant implies that his misconduct was the result of feeling used and neglected over alleged misrepresentations by his recruiter.  The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs.  The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the recruiter misled him through the recruitment process.  The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations in the recruitment process, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct.  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, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), 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 XXX, xlist the offense(s)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

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.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs.  

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