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

 ex-QM3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00321

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020128, 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 020829.  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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Was discharged from the Navy due to receiving a DUI and driving on a suspended license.

2.  I feel other than the two above incidents I was a good service member, as my military records would show.

3.  I feel I made two very bad decisions, and I will live with what ever review this board makes with my lack of evidence. 

4.  Received a good conduct medal for period ending 96 Jan 01.

Documentation

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

Copy of DD Form 214
Copies of Service Related Documents (81pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   USN 		930705 - 950705	HON
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	920722 - 930704	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  950706		Date of Discharge:  970603

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  11  00
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  38

Highest Rate:  QM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  3.90 (2)	Behavior:  3.90 (2)		OTA:  3.90 (4.0 Evals)
Performance:  2.50 (2)	Behavior:  2.50 (2)		OTA:  2.36 (5.0 Evals)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, NAVY"E"RIBBON (2 Silver E's), AFEM, AFSM, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  6

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

GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950706:	Reenlisted onboard USS PENSACOLA (LSD-38) for 4 years.  (BCNR corrected reenlistment date from 950501 to 950706).

960516:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:  Insubordinate conduct towards a First Class Petty Officer; Article 86: (2 Specifications); Spec 1: Absent without leave, Spec 2: Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty to limits of CG-56 for 30 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 4 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.  (Extracted from CO’s letter dated 4Jun97)

960716:	Applicant acknowledged the Evaluation Report & Counseling Record for 95Sep06 to 96Jun25, which stated:  "Petty Officer (Applicant) consistently shows contempt for authority and displays a lack of respect for all appointed over him."

970206:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct, drunkenness.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty to limits of CG-56 for 45 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.
	Note:  CO’s letter dated 4Jun97 indicates NJP for these same offenses held 25Jan97 vice 6Feb97.  

970206:	Most recent NAVPERS 1070/613 (Administrative Remarks) issued 6Feb97.  [Extracted from CO’s letter dated 4Jun97, but retention warning not contained in service record.]

970528:	To Unauthorized Absence.

970529:	Applicant issued notification of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  
Note:  Applicant endorsed notification letter 2Jun97.

970602:	From Unauthorized Absence (6days/S)

970602:  	Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

970604:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.  Commanding Officer’s verbatim comments: [Petty Officer (Applicant) is an administrative burden, he has no potential for future service in the U. S. Navy.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970603 with a discharge characterization of general (under 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).

Issues 1-4.  The Board disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge.  Upon review of the official record, the Board discerned the characterization of service, as well as the narrative reason for separation, accurately reflects the Applicant’s service to his country.  When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A characterization of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  Although the Applicant was awarded a good conduct medal for the period ending January 1, 1996, his performance evaluation for the reporting period September 9, 1995-June 15, 1996 states “Petty Officer (Applicant) consistently shows contempt for authority and displays a lack of respect for all appointed over him.”  In addition, the Applicant’s service was marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and a subsequent period of unauthorized absence, which resulted in his discharge.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.  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.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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