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

Docket No. ND03-00393

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

ex-MMFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00393

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030109.  The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.  In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031215.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  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 stated

No issues were submitted by the Applicant. 

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	911023 - 920426	COG
	Active:   USN 			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  920427		Date of Discharge:  950921

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    03  04  25
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  19			Years Contracted:  4 (24 months extension)

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  69

Highest Rate:  MM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.70 (4)	Behavior:  2.60 (4)		OTA:  2.80

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SSDR, SASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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:

940523:	Medical Officer found Applicant ETOH dependent, recommended Level III treatment.

940527:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeyed a direct order from Executive Officer to muster at 0530 in clean uniform.
	Award: Forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 1 month.  No indication of appeal in the record.

940721:	Failed Level III rehabilitation.
  
950303:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully possessing more than one ID, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Discredit to Armed Forces.
	Award: Forfeiture of $498.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950329:	Retention Warning from USS SEATTLE (AOE-3):  Advised of deficiency (Specifically, you were seen at Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment on 950303 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, having in your possession more than one properly validated armed forces ID card; and Article 134, disorderly conduct was of nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 

950622:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful general order, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Unlawfully possess a concealed weapon.
	Award: Forfeiture of $478.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950712:	USS SEATTLE (AOE-3) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment on 950622, a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment on 940527, 950303, and 950622 and by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by his alcohol related incident on 950616.

950712:	Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

950713:	An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, a pattern of misconduct, and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

950718:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment on 950622, a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment on 940527, 950303, and 950622 and by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by his alcohol related incident on 950616.

950825:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failed to report an offense.
	Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

950828:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 19950921 under honorable conditions (general) 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions, alcohol rehabilitation failure and an adverse counseling entry on another occasion.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate.  Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  The discharge was proper and equitable.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident 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 is reminded that he 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 9, effective 
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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 “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: