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

Docket No. ND01-00422

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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00422

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010220, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.  The applicant requested a personal appearance before a traveling panel closest to Detroit, MI.  The applicant listed the Marine Corps League as the representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area.  The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010629.  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 spoke with a Navy Recruiter in 1986 and was told that if I successfully completed the ROTC program through McClellan High School that I would be promoted to E3 upon completion of boot camp.  I did not complete the ROTC program at McClellan, because my family moved to Sikeston, MO.  I attended Sikeston Senior High School and enrolled in the ROTC/DEP there.  I did not finish the last month of the program, as I began boot camp.  The recruiter did not explain to me that I would not be given the opportunity to delay entry into active duty so that I could finish with ROTC.  As a result of not finishing the program, I was not made an E3 as promised.

2.  I was seventeen years old, when I went active duty, having signed up when I was just 16 yrs old.  I am not excusing the mistakes that I made simply on being young, but my immaturity played a role.  In addition, my parents had divorced in 1983, and each of them remarried in 1985.  When I was in the military, I was still struggling with my parents' divorce; still trying to accept that they would not be getting back together, and still adjusting to my step-parents.  As a result of my immaturity, in combination with my personal problems, I fell in with the wrong crowd.  I was a follower, not a leader.  This led me to make some poor choices.  I based those decisions on the bad influence of others whom I trusted more than I trusted myself.

3.  While I was on active duty, I made mistakes that I now regret.  At the time, however, I did not realize the consequences of my actions.  I didn't take my responsibilities seriously, and I didn't think my decisions through.  I had limited social and employment skills.  Now, I am a different person. I have tried to maintain steady employment.  I have been married three years, and I have five children. I have tried to stay "clean" and stay out of trouble.  In short, I am trying to turn my life around.  As the attached letters indicate, I am making an effort to be a better member of the community and to be a better family man.  Because of this, I would like to have my discharge character upgraded, to repair that section of my life as best I can.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated April 18, 2000
Job/character reference dated April 21, 2000
Letter from Department of Corrections dated April 18, 2000
Character reference dated April 20, 2000
Letter from Marine Corps League dated April 30, 2000
Letter to applicant from Marine Corps League dated April 30, 2000
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs dated May 12, 2000
Letter from Marine Corps League to Department of Veterans Affairs dated May 10, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	861010 - 870713	ELS
		   USNR (DEP)	880908 - 880912	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  880913		Date of Discharge:  900220

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  08
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  25

Highest Rate:  SA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (1)	Behavior:  2.00 (1)		OTA:  2.60

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

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:

890518:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): (1) Failure to go to place of duty on 20Apr89, (2-4) Absence from place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (3 specs): (1-2) Willful disobedience of a petty officer, (3) Disrespect towards a petty officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): (1-2) Disorderly conduct, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement.
	Award: Correctional custody for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890724:	Retention Warning from USS YELLOWSTONE (AD 41):  Advised of deficiency (Failure to go to appointed place of duty, absence from place of duty, willful disobedience of a petty officer, disrespect towards a petty officer, disorderly conduct and false official statement.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

891214:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Dereliction in the performance of duties, (2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

891229:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restricted men's muster.
	Award: Forfeiture of $50 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900111:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restricted muster.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900122:	USS YELLOWSTONE (AD 41) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900122:	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.

900131:	Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900206:	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 900220 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 first issue states:  “I spoke with a Navy Recruiter in 1986 and was told that if I successfully completed the ROTC program through McClellan High School that I would be promoted to E3 upon completion of boot camp.  I did not complete the ROTC program at McClellan, because my family moved to Sikeston, MO.  I attended Sikeston Senior High School and enrolled in the ROTC/DEP there.  I did not finish the last month of the program, as I began boot camp.  The recruiter did not explain to me that I would not be given the opportunity to delay entry into active duty so that I could finish with ROTC.  As a result of not finishing the program, I was not made an E3 as promised.”  The applicant’s issue regarding alleged promotion promises by his recruiter is non decisional and not an issue for this Board’s consideration.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states:  “I was seventeen years old, when I went active duty, having signed up when I was just 16 yrs old.  I am not excusing the mistakes that I made simply on being young, but my immaturity played a role.  In addition, my parents had divorced in 1983, and each of them remarried in 1985.  When I was in the military, I was still struggling with my parents' divorce; still trying to accept that they would not be getting back together, and still adjusting to my step-parents.  As a result of my immaturity, in combination with my personal problems, I fell in with the wrong crowd.  I was a follower, not a leader.  This led me to make some poor choices.  I based those decisions on the bad influence of others whom I trusted more than I trusted myself.”  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 applicant’s third issue states:  “While I was on active duty, I made mistakes that I now regret.  At the time, however, I did not realize the consequences of my actions.  I didn't take my responsibilities seriously, and I didn't think my decisions through.  I had limited social and employment skills.  Now, I am a different person. I have tried to maintain steady employment.  I have been married three years, and I have five children. I have tried to stay "clean" and stay out of trouble.  In short, I am trying to turn my life around.  As the attached letters indicate, I am making an effort to be a better member of the community and to be a better family man.  Because of this, I would like to have my discharge character upgraded, to repair that section of my life as best I can.”  While the NDRB is authorized to consider an applicant’s post service conduct in consideration for an upgrade, the Board found the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive and the Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterized the applicant’s service.  Relief is not warranted.

The applicant 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 recommended

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), 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 “afls10.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/A9301/A9309