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

Docket No. ND01-01074

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

 ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01074

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010817, 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 020328.  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.  Since my discharge from active duty, I have willingly obtained diagnosis and received treatment for a disorder that my examiner states may have caused my discharge to take place.  Please see attached document from Dr. A. R. C_. I apologize for my actions and I have many regrets.  I maintain a high regard for the military of my country.
I believe God reveals things to us when He sees we are ready to receive and appreciate his blessings.  I thank God for my disorder being diagnosed and treatment being provided.  I now live a normal life and am trying to correct the mistakes of my past that there might be a chance to correct. I Thank You for this chance and pray that your final answer will be to grant me an honorable discharge from the duties that I would like to have been able to complete for the Navy.  Sincerely

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Three pages from applicant's service record
Letter from Mental Health Center dated July 31, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	880830 - 890205	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  890206		Date of Discharge:  900530

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  03  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  24			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  63

Highest Rate:  AR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  NOB		Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  2.80

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:

890531:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty from 1900, 12May89 until 0130, 13May89, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order/regulation, to wit: wrongfully wearing civilian attire without a NATTC special privilege card on 12May89, violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Drunk on duty on 13May89, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunkeness - incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drugs on 13May89.
	Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

890531:	Retention Warning from [Naval Air Technical Training Center, Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN]:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence fro 1900, 12May89 to 0130, 13May89, wrongfully wearing civilian attire without a NATTC special privilege card on 12May89, drunk on duty on 13May89 and overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs, incapacitated for the proper performance of duties on 13May89.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

890614:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty on 4Jun89, violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Failure to obey a lawful order/regulation on 4Jun89 by wrongfully wearing civilian attire without a Naval Air Technical Training Center Special Privileges Card, (2) Fail to obey a lawful order/regulation on 4Jun889 by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while in a restricted status.
	Award: Forfeiture of $349 per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 30 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated May 7, 1990.]

890719:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Alcohol abuse, less than monthly, ashore off duty.  CAAC found applicant not dependent and recommended Level I treatment.  Commanding officer recommended retention and Level I treatment.

890719:	Applicant recommended for NADSAP treatment.

890913:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty on 1200, 29Jul89, to wit: NADSAP class, (2) Failure to go to appointed place of duty on 1200, 30Jul89, to wit: NADSAP class.
	Award: Forfeiture of $349 per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

900208:	Summary Court-Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs):
	Specification 1: 
	Specification 2: Break restriction
	Finding: to Charge I and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence: Forfeiture of $482.79, confinement for 30 days.
	CA action 900209: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

900208:	Applicant to confinement.

900314:	Alcohol abuse, 1-3 time per week, ashore off duty.  CAAC found applicant not dependent and recommends separate not via VA hospital.  Commanding officer recommends separate not via VA hospital.

900326:	Applicant from confinement.

900411:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 81: Conspiracy - conspire with another service member to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - destruction of government (enlisted service record).
	Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  Forfeiture suspended for 3 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.  [Extracted from CO's letter dated May 7, 1990.]

900424:	Naval Air Technical Training Center, Memphis, TN notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900501:	Applicant advised of her 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.

900507:	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.

900518:	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 900530 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).

Issue 1 states that since her discharge, the applicant has been diagnosed with a disorder that may have caused her discharge.  There is no documentation to prove that the disorder (AHD and a bipolar disorder) the applicant was diagnosed with having in the year 2001 existed in 1990 or that it affected her actions at that time.  The applicant was justifiably held accountable for her actions.  The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable.  Relief based on this issue is not warranted.

Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct.  The applicant did not provide any of these documents. She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. 

 

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/A9453/A9217/A9221