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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00667

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20060419.  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 20070201.  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 - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues

The Applicant submits no decisional issues.  The Applicant states “I am submitting this request for an upgrade in discharge due to the realization of the fact that there are programs and opportunities that I am trying to pursue but are not available to me under my current status.”

Documentation

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

Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  USNR (DEP)	20010425 - 20010919	COG
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  20010920		Date of Discharge:  20040708

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  09  19
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  None
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  17 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted:  4 (24-month extension)

Education Level:  12				AFQT:  73

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (3)		Behavior:  1.3 (3)		OTA:  2.08

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy Unit Commendation.

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

020212:	Service School Command Mental Health Unit (Applicant Mental assessment):  Applicant states “I’m always getting into trouble and I can’t stop.”  He is constantly in trouble for being late to class.  Falling asleep in class and getting into confrontations with other shipmates.  Client is currently pending OIC Mast.”  
	Recommendation:  Return to full duty due to absence of a disqualifying mental health condition.  Refer to Mental Health clinic for further evaluation.  

020219:	Medical evaluation at NAVHOSP Great Lakes:  Pt does not meet diagnostic criteria for a disqualifying psychiatric condition.  PT is having a difficult time adjusting to the demands of military life.
	AXIS 1: Occupational Problems
	AXIS II: No diagnosis
	AXIS III: None
	AXIS IV: Routine military service
	AXIS V: GAF 65
                        Plan:  Pt follow up appointment for individual supportive therapy.

020225:	Medical evaluation at NAVHOSP, Great Lakes, IL Psychology by P. L. S_, , LT, MSC, USNR.
	Pt went to OIC Mast and was given restriction which ends tomorrow. Also he will remain in school but will be setback.
                        Assessment: Level of risk low.  No change to diagnosis

020314:	Medical evaluation at NAVHOSP, Great Lakes, IL Psychology by P. L. S_, , LT, MSC, USNR.
	S/O: (1) Change in problem:  No significant stress at this time.  (2) Significant Event:  Went to OIC Mast and the charges against him were dropped.  (3) Response to Treatment:  Positive.  (4) Factors Interfering: None.  (5) MSE: Alert and oriented x 4; appropriate appearance; cooperative; euthymic mood, bright affecting more positive and optimistic, no suicidal/homicidal. (6) Focus: Pt is more focused on doing well in Tech Care, his current average is 83.  Discussed ways for him to not let what is going on in his environment interfere with his accomplishing his goals.
	Assessment: (1) Level of risk is low.  (2) No change in diagnosis.
	Plan:  (1) Follow up in 1 week.  (2) Pt aware of safety plan.

030714:	Applicant M_ is a struggling sailor who places a strain on First division.  He has been counseled on several occasions for his performance as a watchstander, once for sleeping on watch.  [Extracted from Evaluation Report and Counseling Record]

031024:	Applicant found fit for correctional custody.

040708:	Applicant M_ is a poor performer, with no apparent motivation or drive.  Applicant M_ has been to Commanding Officer’s Non-Judicial Punishment numerous times with no improvement.  He is not recommended for retention or advancement. .  [Extracted from Evaluation Report and Counseling Record]

040708:	DD Form 214:  Applicant discharges with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of a pattern of misconduct, authority:  MILPERSMAN 1910-140.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package. 
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040708 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) 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 (B and C).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

The Applicant is requesting an upgrade in his discharge 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.  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 numerous nonjudicial punishment proceedings [Extracted from remarks on Applicant’s Evaluation Report and Counseling Record] 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 states “I am submitting this request for an upgrade in discharge due to the realization of the fact that there are programs and opportunities that I am trying to pursue but are not available to me under my current status.”  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.  Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the 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 2002 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

D.  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 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