Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND99-00548

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

 ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00548

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990311, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000110.  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 of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  I feel that my release from the Navy is based on problems I had with personnel I had to deal with my last 1 1/2 years in.  I have a history of bad nerves which limited my ability to deal with these problems.  I brought up my problem with my chain of command at one time which nothing had been done.  I guess it was viewed as an excuse.  My problems began when I first came to the command (USS Peoria LST 1183) as a fireman.  I had trouble dealing with personnel at that time mainly because of my inexeperince in that field.  I was sent to the deck department about 7 mo's later.  Things went OK with me for about a year.  One incident in 1987 (about late summer that year) in Hong Kong started my downfall.  I was out with friends in town we had a little too much too drink.  I seriously overslept in which I had duty that day my friends left me behind, I was punished for that incident but that started a little anymosity toward me from the people that was above me including a couple petty officers who were new to the command.  It seems that I was often (so were a couple of others) either accused of wrong doings that I had nothing to do with and I was often humiliated by either the division officer or the several times for incidents I had nothing to do with it came to a head in about May-June 1988 in which another incident in which someone else planted evidence against me once again I was humiliated in front of the division that was all I could take so I left on unauthorized absence for about 3-4 days to get myself together.  I was sent to correcional custody unit for 30 days everything seemed to be OK until approximately 1-2 mos later I accidently missed ships movement my nerves tore me up after that it affected my judgement I went AWOL for 4 days till the ship came back and that I recieved a light punishment for that it caused a lot of recentment from several people that I had to deal with every  day.  (Even the commanding officer could tell that I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown when I appeared before him that time. Even though I was a very hard worker during the rest of my time there.  I was still recieving abusive behavior from these people (the petty officers) I was always assigned dirty work which affected my appearance ruining some of my best clothes, were coveralls that always tore. Etc.  But the last straw came around the holidays when my leave was denied.  (I had not had an official leave for a year and a half) because once again I was accused of damaging some deck property with someone else and once again I was innocent.  I could not take it no more and left for almost a month.  My last days on that command went almost without incident because of these incidents my evaluations did not reflect on how hard of a worker I was on that ship.  Several of my shipmates felt I was a valuble asset there because I worked about 18 hrs. on several days without complaint.  My evaluation was based on what trouble I was in.  I also feel I was forced out of the navy.  I also feel I didn't serve 3 1/2 years for nothing. In all I feel I was mistreated severely it had a bad impact on my nerves which still bothers me today.  This is all I have to say for now.  Thank you for hearing me out.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	850410 - 850806	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  850807		Date of Discharge:  890124

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  34

Highest Rate:  SN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.13 (3)	Behavior:  3.33 (3)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  40 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

850813:	Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL: Advised of deficiency (4^th Class Swimmer qualified.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

860801:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty on 86Jul22.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $295 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, a special evaluation and a page 13 warning.  No indication of appeal in the record.

860804:	Retention Warning from USS PEORIA (LST-1183): Advised of deficiency (Below average performance.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

870905:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0715, 30Aug87 to 1205, 31Aug87 (1 day/surrendered).
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA and oral reprimand.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880613:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from unit from 0715, 31May88 to 2200, 3Jun88 (3 days, 14 hours and 45 minutes/surrendered)).
	Award:  Correctional custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880826:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0430, 15Aug88 to 0106, 22Aug88 (6 days, 20 hours, 36 minutes), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 15Aug88..
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 10 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881229:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from unit 0715, 23Nov to 0420, 23Dec88 (30 days/surrendered).
	Award:  Forfeiture of $335 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881229:	USS PEORIA (LST-1183) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

881229:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

881230:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 

890107:	CNMPC 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 890124 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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’s statement, submitted as an issue, was considered by the Board.  The Board found no evidence to suggest the applicant was mistreated while on active duty.  Furthermore, the applicant’s statement details extenuating and mitigating circumstances surrounding his NJP’s.  The Board found the applicant’s discharge for a pattern of misconduct proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  The applicant must be aware that 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.  The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, effective 870615 - 890110), 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

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX:  A6750/A9309/A9321/A9319/A9229/A9401/A9217/A9223/A9221