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

Docket No. ND00-00292

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

 ex-MMFR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00292

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 991227, 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 000817.  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 my discharge was unfair because of the emotional strain placed on my mental state.  By my marriage, and the separation from my spouse, while active in the Navy Submarine force.  I married at a young age and I also knew military life would be challenging, but the responsibilities on both sides become overwhelming to my mental state.  I tried to be the responsible young man and handle my responsibilities, unfortunately I made the wrong choices, which resulted in my separation from the U.S. Navy.  I apologize for my actions and humbly ask the board for its forgiveness in considering my change of discharge status.  I have been a productive member of society and would like to be considered for federal employment to better secure my family future and my past to be possibly corrected.

Documentation

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

None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	851219 - 851225	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  851226		Date of Discharge:  880106

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  00  11
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  60

Highest Rate:  MMFN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  3.20 (1)		OTA:  NOB

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSR 

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:

861016:	Civil Conviction at State of Connecticut, Norwich Superior Court for sexual assault in the 4^th degree.
	Sentenced to 60 days in Montville Correctional Center (suspended) for 1 year, fined $500.00 plus court fee of $15.00.
 
861016:	Retention Warning from [Naval Submarine School, Groton, CT]:  Advised of deficiency (Civilian conviction of sexual assault in the 4^th Degree), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

870810:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty, violation of UCMJ Article 113: Asleep on duty.
	Award:  Correctional Custody for 28 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

870824:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches and gestures.
Award:  Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 7 days (suspended until 870906).  No indication of appeal in the record.

871020:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Wrongful use of a controlled substance (THC).
	Award:  Confinement on Bread & Water for 3 days, forfeiture of $304.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

871020:	Medical Officer evaluation indicates applicant use THC while UA one time, found not drug dependent.

871023:	USS BATON ROUGE (SSN-689) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP of 871020 and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP on 871020, 870824, 870810 and civil conviction of 871016.

871027:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

871106:	Substance Abuse Report indicates applicant abused marijuana, dependency not determined, applicant suspected of marijuana use based on girlfriend accusation, consent urinalysis positive for THC.

871113:	Applicant waived Administrative Discharge Board 

871202:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct

871220:	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 880106 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 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 is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy 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. 

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 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

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/A9321/A9307/A9301