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

059-56-2905, ex-EMFN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00178

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review.  The applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as his representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000803.  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.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214.  Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period should read:  “89  MAY  01” vice “88  MAY  01”.  The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate. 

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  My main issue is that without an upgrade I cannot apply for Citizenship for this Country.  My Mother and Brother have both become American Citizens, my Father is presently applying, and my son Alex is a Citizen by right of birth.  I have lived here since I was age 6 (six).  During the past 24 years, I have felt as an American.  I have never been in trouble with the law.  I have always worked since my discharge, never being a burden to the state or city in which I have lived.  I am presently employed by the New York City Transit Authority, a civil service job, as an electrician.  I have been working this job for the past two years.  It is very important to me to be able to become a U.S. Citizen.
I feel very proud to have served in the U.S. Navy.  Although my conduct might not have been the best at times, I was not always in trouble.  I was foolish and naive, I was very immature, but I was not a bad person.  I ask that I not be punished for the rest of my life for the wrongs that I did while in the service of this Country.  This land, this Nation and the city that I live in are my home.  I just want the chance to be a total part of it.  I very much want to be an American Citizen.  This Country is all I know.

I thank you again for your time and consideration.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States appreciates the opportunity to have conducted a review of the aforementioned applicant's case file on February 9, 2000.  The following issues are presented in addition to those listed in Item 8, DD Form 293, and in support of the Board action requested in Item 3:

2.  IAW SECNAV Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (MDR 1984), enclosure (1), chapter 9. paragraph 9.3, Equity of discharge, we ask the Board to consider the following post-service factors:

•	The applicant's ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.
•	The applicant is currently a single parent raising a 4-year old boy and has come to understand what it is to have responsibility and accountability.  The applicant stated that "(he) wishes that at the time of (his) enlistment (he) could have had the same maturity and level of responsibility that (he) has now."
•	Good employment history as evidenced by his employer's letter of recognition.
•	Focused and goal oriented on, obtaining his U.S. citizenship.

The post-service factors displayed by this applicant are evidence that the type of behavior that led the service to discharge him has not been exhibited since and is not likely to be exhibited again in the future.

3.  We ask the Board to consider the applicant's discharge IAW SECNAV Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (MDR 1984), enclosure (1), chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, Propriety of Discharge.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States' express purpose in providing this statement, and any other submittals or opinions of record, is to aid the applicant in resolving any improprieties or inequities in the character and basis for discharge.  After reviewing all available evidence, we ask the Board to resolve any doubt in favor of the applicant and to grant the action requested as entitled under Title 1 0 U.S.C, Section 1553.

Documentation

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

Character reference dated August 25, 1999
Copy of thank you letter dated May 21, 1999
Copy of Letter of Commendation dated November 18, 1997
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from applicant dated September 20, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	890327 - 890430	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890501		Date of Discharge:  920219

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  08  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12 1/2		AFQT:  82

Highest Rate:  EMFN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (1)	Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  3.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  SSDR, BER, NDSM, HSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

900222:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: False or unauthorized pass.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $362 per month for 1 month, restriction for 5 days.  Forfeiture of $262.00 suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900226:	CAAC Evaluation: Applicant found to be A. not alcohol dependent, B. Not involved in alcohol abuse.  C. Alcohol was only an associated finding.  Treatment: No requirement for Level III rehab.  Would benefit from NADSAP course.

900329:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or a regulation.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910612:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): (1) Willful disobedience to a petty officer, (2) Contempt or disrespect towards a petty officer.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $463 per month for 2 months, restriction for 10 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910612:	Retention Warning from USS DULUTH (LPD 6):  Advised of deficiency (Contempt or disrespect towards a petty officer and willful disobedience to a petty officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

920124:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit.
	Award: Not found in service record.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 26Jan92.)

920124:	Medical officer screen indicated applicant alcohol dependent.

920126:	USS DULUTH notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO's NJP as follows:  22Feb90, viol of UCMJ Art 134, false or unauth pass, 29Mar90, viol of UCMJ 92, failure to obey an order or reg, 12Jun91, viol UCMJ Art 91 (Spec I) - Willful disob of a P.O., (Spec II) Contempt or disresp to a P.O., 24Jan92, viol of UCMJ Art 86, UA fm unit, and for ALC abuse rehab failure as evid by your failure to complete Level III treatment for ALC abuse.  [Extracted from CO's message dated 26Jan92.]

960126:  	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.

920126:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  Commanding officer's comments (verbatim): This man is a cat with nine lives and has used all nine.  He was retained when he was an alcohol rehab failure and had two other incidents between his alcohol rehab (LEVELIII) failure and the straw that broke the camels back --  U-A in our first liberty port of cruise.  Street smart with potential but will not conform.  This command went to extraordinary efforts to try and salvage this man and I personally dedicated an excessive amount of time in counselling and providing recommended corrective actions.  Its a shame he didn't respond.  His problem is his attitude and his inability to admit he has an alcohol problem he can't control.  All of his incidents were alcohol related including his last one - the one that left us no alternative but to recommend immediate discharge.  He is an administrative burden.  A threat to good order and discipline and danger to embarrass the Navy and his country in foreign ports.  No one in my 3 command tours has been given more chances, more breaks, for the good of the Navy we must discharge this man under other than honorable conditions.

920131:	BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920212:	Applicant requested VA treatment nearest my home of record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920219 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 issue that he needs an upgrade in order to apply for citizenship is non decisional.  Additionally, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service.  The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “IAW SECNAV Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (MDR 1984), enclosure (1), chapter 9. paragraph 9.3, Equity of discharge, we ask the Board to consider the following post-service factors:

•	The applicant's ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.
•	The applicant is currently a single parent raising a 4-year old boy and has come to understand what it is to have responsibility and accountability.  The applicant stated that "(he) wishes that at the time of (his) enlistment (he) could have had the same maturity and level of responsibility that (he) has now."
•	Good employment history as evidenced by his employer's letter of recognition.
•	Focused and goal oriented on, obtaining his U.S. citizenship.”
•	
The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization 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.

The applicant’s third issue states:  “We ask the Board to consider the applicant's discharge IAW SECNAV Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (MDR 1984), enclosure (1), chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, Propriety of Discharge.”  The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found no procedural error.  In fact, the NDRB found extensive counseling and alcohol rehabilitation was offered to the applicant.  The discharge was proper as issued.  Relief is not warranted. 

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.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:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023