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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND04-00157

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20031104.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.  The Applicant requests 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 20050201.  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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I was diagnosed with tuberculosis one month after my discharge.  This was most likely what was causing the fatigue that led to my missing duty.”

2. “I was young and fresh out of high school, the treatment I received as a response to my fatigue was very detrimental to a young fragile state of mind.  I was threatened with severe punishments and verbally abused and degraded.”   

Documentation

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

Letter from Applicant’s Sister
DD From 180

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	None
	Active:   USN			None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910830		Date of Discharge:  921030

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  00  24
	Inactive:  00  01  08

Age at Entry:  18			Years Contracted:  8

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  84

Highest Rate:  AA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  1.00 (1)		Behavior:  2.80 (1)		OTA:  2.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM, SASM(2)

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:  NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

911007:	Commenced 24 months of active duty under the Seaman Apprenticeship Training program.

920915:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86; violation of the UCMJ, Article 92), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 
	
920915:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order.
	Award:  Correctional Custody for 30 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months).  No indication of appeal in the record.

920930:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (8 Specifications).
	Award:  Vacated previous NJP punishment of reduction in rate to E-1, and restricted to NAS OCEANA for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

921005:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct as evidenced by a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment and for violation of your service record page 13 counseling/warning of 920915.  The Applicant was informed the least favorable characterization of discharge of under other than honorable conditions was possible.

921005:	Applicant advised of 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.

921007:	Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense.

921015:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19921030 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A & B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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 (D and E).

Issue 1.  The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were likely the result of fatigue caused by tuberculosis.  When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline.  While he may feel that his medical condition was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service.  The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  Relief denied.

Issue 2.  The Applicant states that he was “threatened with severe punishments and verbally abused and degraded,” harming his “fragile state of mind.”  The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case.  The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.  The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case to an administrative board, but waived that right.  Relief denied.  

An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the UCMJ.  The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Relief is 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 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B.  Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, disobeying a lawful order, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.

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 “http://Boards.law.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:

		Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023