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

Docket No. ND00-00512

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

ex-ADAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00512

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The applicant listed AMERICAN LEGION as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001005.  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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1.  (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member opines that her discharge is inequitable and warrants upgrade because her legal officer did not properly represent her, she was racially discriminated against, she did not receive her full due process rights by denied an ADB, and because she was given insufficient counseling for her anger problem.

2.  (EQUITY ISSUE)  This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application.

Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Rebuttal for Separation Recommendation to Commanding Officer of Submarine Group 2 (2pgs)
Letter from Applicant (2pgs)
Copies of Commanding Officer's Messages (2)
Copies of Retention Warning (3)
Copy of Enlistment School Guarantees Contract
Copy of Enlistment/Reenlistment Contract

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 		None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	960427 - 970420	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  970421		Date of Discharge:  981106

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  06  16
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  NMA

Highest Rate:  ADAN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.00 (3)	Behavior:  1.33 (3)		OTA:  NMA

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  Marksman Rifle Ribbon, AFSM 

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None 

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

GENERAL(UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

980106:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (Responsibilities and Personal Behavior), notified of corrective actions and assistance available. 

980116:	Incident/Complaint Report from Security Officer, Naval Air Station, Brunswick, ME for aggravated assault. 

980116:	Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: (2 Specs), Spec 1: Assault ADAN M. M____ by striking him with her fist; Spec 2: Assault ADAN M. M_____ by waving a broken bottle towards him. 

980218:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (Performance and Personal Behavior), notified of corrective actions and assistance available. 

980312:	Mental Health Clinic Evaluation: P O W_____ was seen on this date due to post conflict with peers and a question of her suitability for military service.  She was administered an MMPI-2 and a clinical interview which included a mental status exam.  Her affect, interpersonal behavior and cognitive function are appropriate.  She denied any SI/HI, delusions, hallucinating, substance abuse, etc.  She did describe a chaotic home life in which she was in an out of foster homes for the majority of yrs up to age 18.  She also lived with her mother for part of the time (6 yrs) but she was abusing various illegal drugs and physically abusing P O W____.  P O W_____ presents a history of fighting with peers.  This occurred in school as well as foster homes.  She is a very bright and articulate individual who has had to use her wits and well as physical force to survive.  Was placed in a class for the intellectual gifted.  States she is motivated to stay in the Navy and be a success.  Feels there are few opportunities on the street for her and she doesn't want to end up like her mother, who abused drugs and is now in a Mental Hospital.  P O W_____ would have a difficult time with trust so that she doesn't easily become close to people and stay more detached.  We also ___ of her peers tending to feel she is putting them down or being condescending to them.
	Impression: The member does not process a severe mental disease or defect for purpose of RCM-706 examinations and is considered competent.
	Recommendation:  The member is not considered mentally ill and can return to duty.  If her problems persist consideration should be given to an Administrative Separation for unsuitability, Her long standing characterological and behavior problems may make it impossible for her to serve adequately in the Military.  Processing for Administrative Separation IAW NAVMILPERSMAN 3620225 would also require documented interference with the performance of duties and counseling. 

980319:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Lack of emotional control, and physical control as evident by your appearance at Executive Officer Inquiry held 980311 concerning the incident which took place on 980116), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

980415:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Lack of emotional control, failure to carry out assigned duties, failure to obey a direct order by your work center supervisor and use of abusive language toward fellow coworkers as demonstrated by your actions on the evening of 980414), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

980423:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (Personal Behavior), notified of corrective actions and assistance available. 

980509:	Counseling:  Advised of deficiency (Responsibilities and specifically Military Bearing), notified of corrective actions and assistance available. 

980520:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward a Petty Officer; violation of UCMJ Article 117: Provoking Speeches; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Wrongfully communicating a threat; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Disorderly Conduct.
	Award:  Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction in rate (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.
 
980523:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Lack of emotional control and physical control as evident by your appearance at Captain's Mast held on 980520 concerning the incident that took place on 980428), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

981001:	Charge I:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a LT S_____ A. D____, a commissioned officer, by saying about her, "She can kiss my as," or words to that effect ; Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specs), Spec 1: Failure to obey an order issued by LT: S____ A. D____ to learn to discipline her emotions and manage her anger to prevent any further misconduct which has the potential to be disruptive to her work center, failed to obey the same by wrongfully behaving in a violent manner by throwing trash on the flightline, yelling in the hanger spaces and physically disrupting the duty office, Spec 2: Failed to obey an lawful order issued by LT T___ K. H___, to concentrate on improving military bearing and recognizing direction and orders of those appointed over her, fail to obey the same by wrongfully being argumentative with AMHAN D___ M___, when he ordered her to complete a task .  Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: Assault AMHAN D___ M___ by threatening him with the handle of a mop.  Charge IV: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct which was a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. 

981013:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of minor disciplinary infraction and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 

981013:  	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to submit a written statement, to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.  The applicant understood that she has to have 6 or more years of total active and/or reserve military service to qualify of an Administrative Discharge Board. 

981023:	Commanding officer recommended discharge of General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct- minor disciplinary infractions and misconduct commission of a serious offense.  

981029:	COMSUBGRU TWO directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981106 with General(Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for 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 first issue states:  “(EQUITY ISSUE) This former member opines that her discharge is inequitable and warrants upgrade because her legal officer did not properly represent her, she was racially discriminated against, she did not receive her full due process rights by denied an ADB, and because she was given insufficient counseling for her anger problem.”  The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and documentation and found no evidence to support the allegations of improper representation by council, racial discrimination, denial of due process or insufficient counseling for anger management.  In fact, the applicant’s service record details repeated attempts by the chain of command to help the applicant modify her conduct to conform to acceptable standards.  The applicant was afforded due process and the NDRB found no impropriety in the discharge.  Relief is denied. 

The applicant’s second issue states:  “(EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application.”  The applicant provided no evidence, community service documentation, police record, educational pursuits, etc., to support this issue.  Relief is not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142  [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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:  A6730/A9455/A0139/A9315/