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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 ex-GSMFR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00299

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051206.  The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions).  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.  
In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061019.  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 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I feel that all of the NJP’s I received from 1-14-91 – 11-7-91 were unjust & unfair.   I failed to obtain legal advice on all cases.  I feel I tried to explain these minor infractions which during Captain Mast the U/A charges seem to out weigh any explanation I tried to offer.  Even with my disabilities I had no problem in the U.S. Navy from 1989-1991 I was doing fine.  However, once the first NJP I felt everyone was against me and everything I did somehow turned out wrong.  When performing my extra duty I was marked U/A for restriction (14 times) this resulted in another NJP.”

Documentation

Only the service record was reviewed.  The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

	Inactive:  None
	Active:    None

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  19891122		Date of Discharge:  19920106

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    02  01  15  (Does not exclude lost time.)
	Inactive:  None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

	Unauthorized absence:  2 days
	Confinement:		  None

Age at Entry:  19 

Years Contracted:  4 (24-month extension)

Education Level:  09 (GED)				AFQT:  62

Highest Rate:  GSM3

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  2.0 (1) 		Behavior:  2.8 (1)		OTA:  2.00 

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214):  National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority:  MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events: 

910114:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Fail to go to place of duty (5 specifications)
Spec 1: 901020, duty section muster.
Spec 2: 901026, muster at BEQ 837.
Spec 3: 901027, limited liberty muster.
Spec 4: 901027, limited liberty muster.
Spec 5: 901029, working party.
	Award:  Restriction to SSC BEQ and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-3.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910114:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Poor military performance, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, to wit: Duty section muster at BEQ 837, limited liberty muster at BEQ 837, and working party at BEQ 837.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910221:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (15 specifications), fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, restricted personnel muster at building 236, room 105.  Specification 1 through 15, various times and dates between 910119 to 910122. 
	Award:  Restriction to SSC 837 and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-2.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910818:	Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0500 on 910818.

910820:	Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0500 on 910820 (2 days/surrendered).

910822:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:  Unauthorized absence.
Award:  Confinement on Bread & Water for 3 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

910822:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence for a period of approximately twenty-four hours.  Additionally Applicant have a history of failure to go to Applicant’s appointed place of duty at your previous command), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910905:	Retention Warning:  Advised of deficiency (Habitual lateness.  Unauthorized absence (910819)), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910923:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
	Award:  Reduction to E-1.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911107:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
	Award:  Restriction and extra duty for 45 days.  No indication of appeal in the record.

911115:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dtd 911123].

911115:	Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dtd 911123].

911123:	Commanding Officer, USS TICONDEROGA recommended to BUPERS WASHINTON DC that Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in his current enlistment.  Commanding Officer’s comments:  “FR D_ (Applicant) is a below average performer who does not exhibit potential for growth.  He arrived at my command with two NJP’s from the training command.  He requires constant supervision when assigned any task.  He has failed to achieve minimum PQS qualifications and has been counseled for his poor performance and knowledge as an under instruction watchstander.  He is constantly late and finds it difficult to follow orders.  FR D_ lacks any potential for further naval service and I strongly recommend he be separated under other than honorable conditions.”

911217:	BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920106 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions.  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 claims all of the nonjudicial punishment proceedings received from 19910114 to 19911107 was unjust and unfair.  When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  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 3 retention warnings, 5 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence) and 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order) of the UCMJ.  For the edification of the Applicant, a violation of Article 92 is considered commission of a serious offense (COSO).  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 (19920106).  The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this 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 - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 

B.  The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, (Failure to obey an order or regulation).

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

D.  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