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

Docket No. ND02-00352

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

 ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00352

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 020131, 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 020912.  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 four to one 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, as submitted

1.  I signed up for military service while still in high school and entered active duty soon after graduation from high school.  I was young, from a small town with a population of less than five thousand people and had never been away from home or that town for any length of time.  I had little if any knowledge in the ways of the world.  Because of my youth I was totally unaware of the consequences of the actions I took which caused my discharge and I willfully admit that I regret these actions.  Hopefully after thirteen years I can be forgiven for my behavior as a young, unknowledgeable, ill informed, rather immature man child.  I am currently bettering myself by seeking degrees at post secondary educational institution.  And it is my hope and wish that I will continue to mature and grow in knowledge and wisdom.

Documentation

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

Job/Character reference from Plant Manager dated April 16, 1996
Job/character reference from Dulond Tool and Engineering, Inc dated September 26, 1996
Copy of Institutional Transcript from Jackson State Community College (3 pages)
Letter from Assistant Professor, Jackson State Community College dated November 15, 2001
Copy of unofficial undergraduate transcript Jackson State Community College
Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	860929 - 870625	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  860626		Date of Discharge:  881219

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  05  24
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  85

Highest Rate:  FN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.80 (1)	Behavior:  2.80 (2)		OTA:  3.20

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  None

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  3

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:

871117:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 0545-0548, 18 Oct 87, (2) Unauthorized absence 0645 to 0710, 11 Nov 87, (3) Unauthorized absence 1315 to 1345, 10 Nov 87.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880406:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): (1) Disorderly conduct on 2 Apr 88, (2) Underage drinking on 2 Apr 88.
	Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days, reduction to FA.  Reduction suspended for 6 months.  No indication of appeal in the record.

880406:	Retention Warning from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71):  Advised of deficiency (Record of minor misconduct due to your disorderly behavior, should it continue, will create an adverse record of minor disciplinary infractions, or worse, form a pattern of misconduct which cannot be tolerated.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

881007:	Vacate reduction to FA awarded at CO's NJP dated 6 Apr 86 due to continued misconduct.

881007:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly on 29 Sep 88.
	Award: Forfeiture of $335 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FR.  No indication of appeal in the record.

881008:	USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

881008:	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.

881009:	Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Alcohol abuse, 4 to 7 times per week, ashore off duty.  DAPA and physician found applicant dependent and recommended separate via VA hospital.  Commanding Officer recommended separate via VA hospital.

881102:	Dependency screening for Alcohol dependency.  Recommended Level III ARC at VA.

881102:	Commanding Officer, USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

881128:	CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

881205:	Applicant declined outpatient alcohol rehabilitation through the VA.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 881219 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:  The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted.  The Applicant’s summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct.  The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment.  While he may feel that his immaturity and youth was a factor that contributed to his actions, his official record shows a 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.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  Relief denied.

Issue 2:  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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence that the Applicant is drug and alcohol free, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  Although the Board was impressed with the Applicant’s continuing educational pursuits, the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.  Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.  The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.  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, effective 870615 - 890110), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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:  A6710/A9301/A9221/