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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-GMM3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00498

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20050524.  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 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 General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.  Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement:  “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE DUTY FROM 900607 UNTIL 940608.”  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read:  “MISCONDUCT.”  The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

Equity:  One incident.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	19900108 - 19900606	COG
	Active:   USN	19900607 - 19940608	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19940609		Date of Discharge:  19960904

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  26  
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):  

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  22

Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  54

Highest Rate:  GMM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.0 (1) 		Behavior:  4.0 (1) 			OTA:  4.00 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Meritorious Unit Commendation; Sharpshooter .45; National Defense Service Medal; Southrwest Asia Service Medal; .45 caliber (expert); Good Conduct Award (First) for period ending 95JAN17; Kuwait Liberation Medal; Battle “E” Ribbon

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

940609:	Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

960203:	Applicant detained by shore patrol for domestic conflict.  [Extracted from medical record entry of 960207.]

960603:	Applicant detained by military police after Applicant broke his wife’s windshield.  [Extracted from medical record entry of 960822.]

960619:	Command directed a Temporary Restraining Order for the Applicant regarding his wife.  [Extracted from medical record entry of 960822.]

960822:	Psychiatric evaluation by Clinical Psychology Pearl Harbor.
	History of Present Illness:  “…The [Applicant’s] wife informed him she was having an affair on 24 May.  They had separated three weeks before.  On 31 May & 03 Jun, he broke her truck’s windows... [Applicant] tired hanging himself on the ship two days ago, but didn’t know if the knot would works, so took noose back off…”
Assessment:
	AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed and Anxious Mood, Marital Problems 
	AXIS II: Personality Disorder NOS with Dependent Features
	AXIS III: None Reported 
	The Applicant was considered suicidal/homicidal.
	The Applicant was considered fit for full duty and responsible for his own actions.
	The Applicant was not considered suitable for continued service.
	Treatment plan indicated psychiatric follow-up after discharge.
	Treatment plan indicated Applicant required psychiatric hospitalization this date.
	
Comments:  “The member has longstanding disorder of character and behavior which is of such severity that it renders him unsuitable for further military service, this is not a condition which would require a medical board or further evaluation prior to disposition.  He should be processed expeditiously for an administrative discharge in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN Chapter 36.  If retained on active duty, there will be an increasing risk of harm to himself or others due to his inability to effectively cope with the military environment.  He has engaged in self-destructive behavior in the past at times of stress, and efforts should be made to move him to less stressful environment pending discharge.  He should be emergently re-evaluated if there are further suicide threats or behavior.  Short term mental health treatment for his condition is of limited benefit, and long-term treatment is not available within the military, hospitalization is not currently required, by may be necessary if there is a decline in this mental state.  He should not be given access to weapons, and is non-deployable.”

960826:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
	[Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter of 960830.]

960830:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense and by convenience of the government due to personality disorder as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation on 960822.

960830:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

960830:	Commanding Officer, USS PAUL HAMILTON (DDG 60), directed the Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder and commission of a serious offense.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “Processing in the case of GMM3 K_ A. D_ (Applicant) was initiated upon receipt of enclosure [Psychiatric Evaluation of 960822].  Concur with the Medical Officer’s recommendation.  Separation of GMM3 K_ A. D_ is in the best interest of the Navy.  Date and characterization of discharge:  [Applicant] will be discharged on 960904 with a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960904 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 discharge is inequitable because it was based on one incident.  Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.  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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s violation of Article 92 is the commission of a serious offense.   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 and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.  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.  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 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 92, failure to obey order/regulation.

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 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