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

Docket No. ND00-00793

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

 ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00793

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 000607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable.  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 010111.  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 (verbatim)

1.  To whom it may concern:  As stated on my DD-214 I originally enlisted in the Navy for 4 years on 1-25-88 I completed my original 4 years honorably and then extended my service by 1 year.  It was on the fifth year of service that I made choices that regretfully were inappropriate.  I was accused of fraternization with a superior.  I was an E-4 and he was and E-6, I realize that any relationship was improper and I regret decisions that I made.  The Navy was a great experience for me.  I learned work ethics and self confidence that I carry with me today.  I hope someday to tell my kids and their kids about my stint with the Navy with pride without the stigma of a less than honorable discharge.  I appreciate your consideration of my request.

Documentation

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

Copies of DD Form 214 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN			None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	871125 - 880124	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880125		Date of Discharge:  930114

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    04  11  19
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  21			Years Contracted:  4 (12 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  SH3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.72 (5)	Behavior:  3.48 (5)		OTA:  3.64

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR(2), SASM, KLM, NAVY"E"RIBBON, AFEM, NUC 

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:

880726:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violate lawful order on or about 880717.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $335.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910911:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Operate a vehicle while drunk on or about 910813.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $481.00 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

910920:	Retention Warning from [USS JASON (AR-8)]:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 111: Driving while drunk), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

921202:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit for 1 hour on 921128; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful general regulation, to wit: U.S. Navy Regs, Article 1165, by wrongfully having an unduly familiar relationship with her LPO; violation of UCMJ Article134: Disorderly conduct.
	Award:  Forfeiture of $512.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

921209:	USS JASON AR-8 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by three NJP's during this enlistment and violation of a general regulation.  

921209:  	Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights 

921214:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.  Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):  While SHSN_____(applicant’s) military performance is considered to be outstanding, her personal decision to continue a personal relationship with her LPO is unacceptable.  She ignored past counseling sessions and warnings from her chain of command of the consequences that she would face.  Her conduct has created an undesirable environment which can not be tolerated.  Therefore, I recommend that she be discharged from the Navy under other than honorable conditions.

921228:	BUPERS 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 930114 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant’s military record and performance were good as evidenced by her enlisted performance evaluation averages.  However, her performance does not mitigate the seriousness of the applicant’s violations of the UCMJ’s Articles 92 and 134.  The applicant was warned to cease her personal relationship with her LPO and failed to heed these warnings.  The Board sees no reason to grant relief concerning this issue.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification.  There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.  However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E).  Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following:  evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of her not using alcohol (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct.  At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.  Therefore no relief will be granted.  The applicant is encouraged to continue with her pursuits and is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge. 

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.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, for disobeying a lawful general regulation, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  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.  

D.  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.

E.  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/A9219/A0107/A9217