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

Docket No. ND99-01109

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

 ex-PRAN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01109

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 990816, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000427.  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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) / PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. The reason I went into the service is a true American one. I wanted to start my life. Fresh out of high school I signed up into the United States Navy. I was full of hopes and insperation to see the world around me, meet new people and make new friends. To defend my country, and to better my education so as to succeed in life. My duties were to ensure that all rescue equipment our squadron use was always kept at peak performance. I enjoyed this job for it gave me a a true feeling that I was directly involved with the safe recovery of human lives. I always maintained the highest quality and satisfactory with my performance while at work. From the very start of my naval adventures, I always seemed to get along with all of my superiors. All through boot camp I never had a problem with anyone. And was noted for this on a regular bases. After boot camp I went to my designated "A" school. Once again I got along with superior very well. As long as you respect people in charge you receive the same respect back about 95% of the time. After "A" school I went on to my squadron. My superiors were in a group of outstanding individuals. But then time changed and we received new personnel and that's when I had a few problems. My new direct supervisor was one who was not easy to get long with. He tried to do thing his way against the grain of common 

2.  When things didn't work out, the men under him were blamed for his down falls.  And as a direct casue of this I was discharged from the Navy before my time.  So I would have to say that I got along with my superiors as well as my co-workers with the exception of one individual that cared more about trying to impress his superiors than for his own men, and ruined my carrer in the military.  The procedure given to me for my discharge was Captains Mast.

I seeked advice and help from legal aid.  And to my dismay they were unable to help me in my situation.  The reason that they gave was that it was not of a high importance and of the fact that I was in a squadran, and squadrons took care of thngs within themselves.

I was not separated for alcholism.

I never went to any alchol rehabilitation programs.

No I did not request a discharge for the good of the Navy.  They would have been better off with me there working for them.

Yes I was informed of the bad effects of a less than honorable discharge.  I was also told that it would be easy to change later on in the furture.  And that there was the possibility that it would become an hororable discharge on its own after a years time.

I lost most all benefits due to my general discharge under honorable conditions.  I was in the Navy for just under three years, well over two.

I was told that I would keep my benefits with this discharge that I received, but did not.

The effects of my discharge have made it difficult for me to obtain an education.  I lost my G.I. Bill that I payed into and now I am denied this because of the discharge that I have received.

By having my discharge upreaded to Honorable, I expect to gain back my G.I. bill to insure my education.  This would drastically impact my life and how I will be able to support myself and a familly in the furture years to come.  I expect to gain back what I was denied by this discharge start my life once aain.

Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application.  His records were reviewed on December 15, 1999 and the following comments are hereby submitted.

The applicant was punished at 3 non-judicial punishments (NJP) for three violations of Article 86 UCMJ, unauthorized absence and one violation of Article 87 UCMJ, missing ship's movement.  The NJP's held on April 30, 1997 and June 30, 1998 were for minor absences of less than 24 hours.  In most cases this type of infraction is handled at the leading chief or division officer level.  It is rare to see a Sailor at NJP for this type of offense unless there is more than one violation, i.e. missing restricted musters on a consistent basis.  This is not the case in this Sailor's case.  These two incidents happened approximately one year apart.

Since leaving tile Navy, the applicant has proved himself to be a good citizen and a positive influence on his community.  The applicant has demonstrated a positive attitude and is considerate and earnest in his personal and professional relationships.  The applicant is viewed as a well liked, motivated, and hard working individual.  Mr. Bruce Spies points out that the applicant has vigorously pursued his continuing education.  The applicant has also continued to work and be actively involved in the Boy Scout Program.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant's discharge be upgraded as requested.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Letter of Recommendation
Character Reference Letters (2)
Copy of All-Purpose Acknowledgement Statement 

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:  USN 			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	940929 - 950806	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950907		Date of Discharge:  980724

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:  02  11  18
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  43

Highest Rate:  PRAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NMA		Behavior:  NMA		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, NAVY"E"RIBBON (2^ND), SSDR, AFEM,  

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

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

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

960720:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Ship's Movement.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $500.00 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970430:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 2 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

970629:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (You were found guilty of UCMJ, Article 86, Unauthorized absence in that you failed to go, at the time prescribed, to your appointed place of duty), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
  
980630:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on or about 980629, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 2330-07330 Duty Driver watch.
Award:  Forfeiture of $569.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

980714:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 

980714:  	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 

980812:	Commanding officer recommended discharge 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 980724 under honorable conditions (general) 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 Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion, associated with his discharge at the time of issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby.  Relief is therefore denied. 

The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2: (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (B, Part IV).  However, 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, is considered.  The applicant provided three letters of recommendation as documentation of his post-service.  The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided.  The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.  Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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/A9303/A9309/A9319/A0147/A9217/A9223/A9229/A9235