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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-ADAR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00615

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060404.  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 20070118.  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 commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

No decisional issues were submitted by the Applicant.  The Applicant claims he did not tell his recruiter or anybody prior to going into the Navy that he had ADHD and he should have.  The Applicant claims youth and immaturity for his misconduct.

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Twelve pages from Applicant’s medical record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	19991115 - 20000911	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20000912		Date of Discharge:  20021121

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  02  10  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  30 days

Age at Entry:  19

Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  46

Highest Rate:  ADAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (4)		Behavior:  1.8 (4)		OTA:  2.17

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

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

020109:	Civil Conviction:  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for driving on Naval Air Station Whidbey Island with no proof of insurance and an expired driver’s license.
	Sentence:  No further information found in service record.

020111:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Check, worthless, making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $584.55 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

021007:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
	Specification: On active duty, 0700 020829, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

021108:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense.

021108:	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.

030106:	Commanding Officer directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20021121 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 is requesting his characterization of discharge be upgraded to honorable.  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 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 one civil conviction, 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (Unauthorized absence), 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties) and 134 (Checks, worthless, making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds) 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 Applicant claims he did not tell his recruiter or anybody prior to going into the Navy that he had ADHD.  He claims his ADHD is a contributing factor for his misconduct.  The Applicant’s statement that he had ADHD prior to joining the military and that it contributed to his misconduct is not a mitigating factor for his misconduct and does not warrant an upgrade in his characterization of service.  There is no evidence in the record to suggest the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge based merely on the fact that the Applicant admitted he withheld information concerning his alleged medical condition.  Therefore, the NDRB considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.  Relief denied.

The Applicant is also claiming youth and immaturity for his misconduct.  The statement contained in the application that the Applicant’s admission was due to his youth and immaturity was found to be insufficient justification to warrant a change in the reason for 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.  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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], SEPARATION 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, (Dereliction in the performance of duties) and 134 (Checks, worthless, making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds). 

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