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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00010

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 980928, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any person or organization as his representative on the DD Form 293

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990920.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  “After serving in the Navy for 2 ½ years, I requested early termination.  I was being harassed by my fellow shipmates and made fun of.  This caused me undue grief, even though I had served 2 ½ years of active duty.  These events aboard the ship made me feel unfit.”

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	830823 – 831003 	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of  Enlistment:  831004	Date of Discharge:   860425  

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:     02 06 21
	Inactive:   00 00 00

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT: 61

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:   3.20 (2)		Behavior:  2.20 (2)		OTA:  3.20 (2)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BER

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

840128:	NMPC notifies ServScolCom Orlando, FL the applicant may have fraudulently enlisted into the Navy.

840319:	ServScolCom msg to NMPC:  Evidence supports a fraudulent enlistment on part of SR (applicant).  However they request that he be allowed to continue training as he has shown excellent potential of productive service.

840321:	Applicant received retention warning.  Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

840426:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
	Specification 1:  On or about 0730 UA from place of duty
	Specification 2:  On or about 1500 840325 UA from place of duty.
	Specification 3:  On or about 1400 830403 to 0730 830407 UA from SCC.
	Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (2 specs):
	Specification 1:  On or about 840402 failed to obey a lawful order.
	Specification 2: On or about 1205 840403 failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 10 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860131:	Retention warning from Commanding Officer, USS DEYO (DD-989):  Advised of deficiency (UA, failed to obey lawful order), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

841025:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, UA (absent from unit.)
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860131:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (absent from place of duty.) Violation of UCMJ Article 90: Disobeying a commissioned officer.
Award:  Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

861214:	Vacate suspended reduction to SR awarded at CO's NJP dated 860131.

860214:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, UA (absent from appointed place of duty.)
	Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860303:	Commanding Officer, USS DEYO (DD989) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

860321:	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel and to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

860323:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  Commanding officer’s comments:  “It is apparent from a review of SNM’s service record and repeated violations of the UCMJ despite numerous formal page 13 counselings that he exhibits no potential for further productive Naval service.  Based on SR (applicant's) continued misconduct and inability to function in the military environment, it is recommended that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.”

860424:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 860425 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B).  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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.  

However, he did cite he had requested early termination of his enlistment (at 2 ½ year point) and had been harassed by his shipmates which caused him grief.  Unfortunately, these facts do not mitigate the history of non-judicial punishment he incurred during the period of this enlistment that led to his receiving an Other Than Honorable discharge. 

The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question.  Accordingly, the discharge is deemed proper and equitable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/85, effective 
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT ‑ A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

		DA Military Review Boards Agency
		Management Information and Support Directorate
		Armed Forces Reading Room
		Washington, D.C.  20310-1809

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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		Washington Navy Yard
		720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
		Washington, D.C.  20374-5023