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




ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND97-01367


Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 970912, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review and listed the AMERICAN LEGION as his representative on the DD-293.


Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 970914. The NDRB determined that the discharge was proper and equitably reflects the quality of service rendered. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

SPN CODE HKA

THIS IS THE CORRECT SHELL FOR MISCONDUCT due to a pattern of misconduct. 940722 - 961002 ONLY.

THE FINDING FOR MISCONDUCT, (3630600) EFFECTIVE 940722 - 961002. THE SPN CODE IS EFFECTIVE 930628 - PRESENT. The SPN Code change 930628 changed the wording for pattern of misconduct to PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, and the wording for a general discharge to GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS).

---

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)

1.       (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member proffers that personal, family and financial problems contributed to and sufficiently extenuated his misconduct of record to warrant separation under honorable conditions.

2.       (EQUITY ISSUE) Although discharge a relative short time, the former member further request that the board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174c, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

         Active:  None
         Inactive:        None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 950321                        Date of Discharge: 960830

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 10
         Inactive: 00 00 06

Age at Entry: 21                                   Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 37

NEC: DG 9760                              Highest Rate: AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC and NDSM

Nonjudicial Punishment(s): 3              Court(s)-Martial: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 3

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:

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

---

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS¹

950321:  Commenced 36 months on active duty in the Airman Apprentice Training Program at CRUITRACOM Great Lakes, IL.

950702:  Joined USS JOHN STENNIS (CVN-74) Newport News, VA.

960318:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 07800, 960217 until 0630, 960220 (3 days/Surrendered onboard USS JOHN STENNIS).
         Award: Forfeiture of $250 per month for two month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, and reduction to E-2. Forfeiture of $150 per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 15 of 30 days, and reduction in rate is suspended for six months. There was no indication of an appeal in the record.

960318:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (UA); notified of corrective actions and assistance available; advised of the consequences of further deficiencies, and issued a discharge warning.

960626:  Punishment of forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months, 15 days restriction, 15 days extra duty, reduction in rate to E-1, suspended at CO’s NJP of 960318 vacated due to continued misconduct.

960626:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in language (unspecified) towards a first class petty officer on 960509.
         Award: Forfeiture of $437 per month for two months. Forfeiture suspended for six months. There was no indication of an appeal in the record.

960815:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault (unspecified) upon another servicemember on 960707.
         Award: Forfeiture of $437 per month for two months, and restriction and extra duty for 45 days. Forfeiture, restriction and extra duty suspended for six months. There was no indication of an appeal in the record.

960815:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all NJP’s within the current enlistment, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 960626 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in language toward a first class petty officer, and CO’s NJP on 960815 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault upon another servicemember.

960815:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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 and submit a statement on own behalf either verbally or in writing. Receipt acknowledged.

960819:  Applicant’s Statement: “My name is AR S_ I am an Airman aboard the Carrier John C. Stennis CVN-74. I entered the navy March 21, 1995 hoping to fullfill my three year enlistment obligation, i was awarded E-2 because of my college past. I am being discharged with an OTH, which I really can’t agree with, i believe myself to be a person of good nature and easy to get along with and able to take orders, i would have never come into a job that i couldn’t get along with or advance. I’m not a drug user we never caused any trouble onboard my ship I’ve made all deployments and I’ve always worked hard. I’ve been to Captains Mast three times which I’ll explain here. My first time at mast i take full responsibility for it was Friday DATE/TIME and there was a snow storm and there was no public transportation running, my car stalled all day and the coldness worsened it I phoned in and the person on duty took my message and didn’t relay it. The second time I was awarded 30 days restriction 30 days extra duty and two hundred dollars. (15x15) The second time at mast shouldn’t have reached the XO, i was placed in the berthing to help clean it, the ships policy is no tobacco, dip on board the ship, my first class P.O. had me santize a recycling bin with cans of dip spit in them i myself though that was unsanitary but i did it to the best of my ability with what utinsils i had, i asked my p.o. to inspect it he told me that i was lyn was lying that i hadn’t done anything he told me to redo the job and i wiped it again he told me to leave and i agreed i told him while walking out”Fuck it i’ll leave” he asked me what I’d said so i know he didn’t hear me and i told him again, and left i thought nothing else about it a week later i was put on report for disrespect of a 1 ^st class P.O. date/1330 prior to this incident myself and the same P.O had trouble communicating he wrote numerous counseling chits and i put a grievance on him because of unfair treatment (abusive authority) i had witness whom were present during the incident whom the CO wouldn’t let speak to much, which was unfair to me. I was given 15x15 with two hundred dollars, he told me that the next time i come back to CO’s mast that he would fine me 430.00 x ^’s 2. I am a family man married with two children and a dream to finish college and make a living for my family, my wife couldnt get work because of child care and my not being home plus the loss of money and she told me she needed a break. While on restriction the second time we were in the berthing around 21:00 playing cards/dominoes, two of my friends were friends and were caught cheating which was errupting into a fight i stepped in to stop the brawl one of my friends got angry because i wouldn’t let him fight and came at me he did assault me but i never hit him back because of my already being on restriction and because i knew he was angry, i went to my 2130 muster he followed me and tried to fight me i told him that he was overreacting so he left he went back to the berthing and broke my two hundred dollar radio (that he never paid me for) so i went to the MAA and put him on report, i never wanted to get him in trouble i just wanted him to pay for my radio, i told division that i didn’t want to follow up on the situation to just drop it. A week later im on report for assault i had a witness there also i experience a hardship during this period which was hard to take my wife left me and my two children and hasn’t been back since 7/10/96 my kids were suffering badly by her blind decision and i was demoted to an E-1 with a lot of money taken, i was having problems paying my bills and buying needs for my two children, the C.O told me that i would be given an administrative discharge OTH, with an OTH can’t get a good decent job to support my children or i can’t go school to make my college courses complete i hope you can overturn the C.O’s decision so i can have an Honorable discharge so i can help my family (the captain gave me an OTH while knowing about my single parenthood which he could have given me an Hardship discharge).

960820:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all NJP’s within the current enlistment and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 960626 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, disrespect in language toward a first class petty officer; and CO’s NJP on 960815 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault upon another service member. Commanding officer’s verbatim comments: The numerous incidents of misconduct warrant separation in this case. AR S_ does not possess potential for further useful service. His continuing misconduct reflects a flagrant disregard for rules and regulations, and make him a negative influence on the good order and discipline of this command and the naval service as a whole. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that AR S_ be separated from the naval service under other than honorable conditions.

960826:  Commander, Carrier Group Six (COMCARGRU SIX) directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

960830:  Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN Article 3630600.

RECORDER’S NOTE:

¹ The source for all entries is the service record (includes medical/dental record) unless otherwise noted.

---

PART IV - EXTRACT OF PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 9, effective 22 Jul 94 until 02Oct 96), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT, states:

1. A member may be separated for misconduct by reason of one or more of the following circumstances:

a. Misconduct Due to Minor Disciplinary Infractions . A series of at least three but not more than eight minor violations (e.g. specifications) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ( none that could result in a punitive discharge - see Manual for Courts-Martial, Appendix 12, and not drug related) documented in the service record, within the current enlistment, which have been disciplined by not more than two punishments under the UCMJ. The member must have violated counseling (Article 3610250.5) prior to initiating processing. If separation of a member in entry level status is warranted solely by reason of minor violations of the UCMJ, and the member's misconduct does not meet the eligibility requirements for any other misconduct, the processing should be under Entry Level Performance and Conduct (Article 3630200).

b. Misconduct Due to a Pattern of Misconduct

(1) A pattern of misconduct is defined as discreditable involvement with civil and military authorities. The member must have violated counseling (Article 3610250.5) prior to initiating processing. Such a pattern may include both minor and serious infractions as evidenced by:

(a) Three or more civilian convictions within the current enlistment.

(b) Three or more punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.

(c) Any combination of three civilian convictions and punishment(s) under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.

(d) Three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each within the current enlistment.

(e) Nine or more violations (e.g., specifications) of the UCMJ within the current enlistment which have been disciplined by punishment under the UCMJ.

(2) A pattern of misconduct is defined as well by discreditable management of one's personal and financial affairs as evidenced by:

(a) A set pattern of failure to pay just debts. (Include financial statement prepared as specified in Article 6210140.14 when case is forwarded.)

(b) A set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to follow orders, decrees, or judgments of a civil court concerning the support of dependents. Include copies of court order(s), judgments, etc.

c. Misconduct Due to Commission of a Serious Offense (processing not mandatory) . An individual may be processed for administrative separation when a punitive discharge would be authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for the same or a closely related offense. Note that:

(1) If the offense is evidenced by a general or special court-martial conviction--the findings of which have been approved by the Convening Authority--the findings of the court-martial as they relate to the administrative discharge process (basis and reason) are binding on the Administrative Board (see Article 3610260.7a).

(2) If the offense is evidenced solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial Convening Authority has remitted or suspended a punitive discharge, forward the case to the same Convening Authority for endorsement according to Article 3610260.7b.

d. Misconduct Due to Commission of a Serious Offense (processing mandatory)

(1) An individual must be processed for administrative separation when the commanding officer believes by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual committed extremely serious misconduct that either resulted in, or had the potential to result in death, or serious bodily injury, such as but not limited to: homicide, arson, armed robbery, etc.

(2) Sexual Perversion. An individual must be processed for administrative separation when an incident involves sexual behavior that deviates from socially acceptable standards of morality and decency. Such behavior may violate military or civilian law and includes, but is not limited to:

(a) lewd and lascivious acts;

(b) sodomy (forcible heterosexual or child molestation); consensual and forcible homosexual acts with of-age individual shall be processed under Article 3630400);

(c) indecent assault;

(d) indecent acts; and

(e) indecent exposure.

Note that if circumstances involve an incestuous relationship, commanding officers shall notify Chief of Naval Personnel (CHNAVPERS) (Pers-661/83) immediately upon discovery. Per OPNAVINST 1752.2, Pers-661 will review the case for referral to the Family Advocacy Program; if member is not accepted, Pers-83 will direct processing for separation. Note that acceptance into family advocacy programs run by Family Service Centers at local commands does not constitute formal acceptance into the Navy's Family Advocacy Program.

(3) Sexual Harassment. An individual must be processed for administrative separation following punitive actions if appropriate, on the first substantiated incident of sexual harassment involving any of the following circumstances:

(a) threats or attempts to influence another's career or job for sexual favors;

(b) rewards in exchange for sexual favors; or

(c) physical contact of a sexual nature which, if charged as a violation of the UCMJ, could result in a punitive discharge.

Note that an incident is substantiated if there has been a nonjudicial punishment or court-martial conviction, or the commanding officer is convinced based on the preponderance of the evidence that sexual harassment has occurred. All forms of sexual harassment not mentioned above must still be handled administratively (i.e.; NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks (Page 13) counseling, letters of instruction, nonpunitive letters, remarks in evaluations, etc.).

e. Misconduct Due to Civilian Conviction (processing not mandatory) . An individual may be processed for administrative separation based on a conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, provided the offense, or closely related offense could warrant a punitive discharge (see Manual for Courts-Martial, Appendix 12), or the sentence includes confinement of 6 months or more without regard to suspension or probation.

f. Misconduct Due to Civilian Conviction (processing mandatory) . An individual must be processed for administrative separation based on a conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, which involved an offense that either resulted in, or had the potential to result in death, or serious bodily injury, such as but not limited to: homicide, arson, armed robbery, etc., or is a sexual perversion as described in subparagraphs 1d(2)(a) - (e).

2. Under this article, counseling and warning as outlined in Article 3610260.5 is only required for members being processed for misconduct due to pattern of misconduct or misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. The latest offense and counseling and warning must have occurred while assigned to the parent command. Separation activities defined in Article 3640476, and other commands to which temporary duty is authorized by CHNAVPERS, are exempt from this requirement.

3. Characterization. Normally Other Than Honorable, but characterization as General may be assigned when warranted. For respondents who have completed entry level status, characterization of service as Honorable is not authorized unless the respondent's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. When characterization of service as Other Than Honorable is not warranted for a member in entry level status, the separation shall be described as Entry Level Separation.

4. Reduction in Rate. When a servicemember serving in pay grade E-4 or above is administratively separated with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service, the member shall be administratively reduced to pay grade E-3, such reduction to become effective upon separation.

5. Procedures

a. The Administrative Board procedure (Article 3640200) shall be used in processing all reasons, except when processing for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions, in which case Notification procedure (Article 3640200) may be used.

b. Separation processing for misconduct due to civil conviction may be initiated whether or not a member has filed an appeal of a civilian conviction or has stated an intention to do so. Execution of an approved separation should be withheld pending outcome of the appeal or until the time for appeal has passed. The member may be separated prior to final action on appeal upon his or her request or upon direction of the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV).

c. Members confined in a foreign penal institution may be processed for separation, but may not be discharged or separated from the service until the completion of imprisonment and return to the United States. In unusual cases, (i.e., life sentence without possibility of parole) such discharges or separations may be authorized by SECNAV by Reason of Best Interest of the Service (see Article 3630900). SECNAVINST 5820.4 refers.

d. Members must be dual or multiple processed where appropriate, (i.e., members processed for misconduct due to civil conviction must also be processed (dual) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense if the offense for which convicted could warrant a punitive discharge). Exceptions:

(1) misconduct involving only preservice, prior service, or current service homosexual conduct shall be processed only under Article 3530400;

(2) misconduct involving only drug abuse (civil or military) shall be processed only under Article 3630620;

(3) misconduct involving only violation of UCMJ Article 83 shall be processed only under Article 3630100.

e. Members may be processed for separation by reason of misconduct for offenses which occur preservice or in a prior enlistment, provided the misconduct was unknown to the Navy at the time of enlistment or reenlistment and processing for fraudulent enlistment is inappropriate. Under these unusual circumstances, Notification procedures (see Article 3640200) shall be used as the least favorable characterization of service possible for offenses which occur prior to entry into active duty or in prior enlistment is General.

f. Officers exercising special court-martial convening authority are delegated authority (see Article 3610220) to separate members only if an Administrative Board recommends separation with a General or Honorable discharge, the member does not object to the discharge, and that characterization is consistent with guidance in Article 3610300. In cases where member objects to separation, CHNAVPERS (Pers-83) is Separation Authority. Regardless of an Administrative Board's recommendation, CHNAVPERS is Separation Authority for members being separated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by sexual perversion or sexual harassment.

g. Forward processed case by letter of transmittal to Pers-83. Ensure member's full name, rate, and SSN have been indicated on each page of the case. In those cases where the commanding officer effects the separation, indicate date and characterization of separation awarded. Refer to Article 3640200.11 for message submission option in those cases where member waives an Administrative Board, the commanding officer does not have authority to effect separation, or member objects to separation.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGE REVIEW, states, in part:

“9.2 Propriety of the Discharge

a. A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of discharge review, it is determined that:

(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the same if the error had not been made); or

(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.

b. When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting the record.

c. The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no two cases present the same issues of equity.

d. The following applies to applicants who received less than fully honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall either recharacterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than honorable discharge, taking into account that:

(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have affected directly the performance of military duties;

(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.”

C. SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Manual for Discharge Review 1984, Chapter 9, Standards for Discharge Review, paragraph 9.3, Equity of the Discharge, states, in part, that a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless in the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the NDRB viewed in conjunction with the factors listed in this paragraph and the regulations under which the applicant was discharged, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to:

1. Quality of service, as evidenced by factors such as:

a. service history, including date of enlistment, period of enlistment, highest rank achieved, conduct and proficiency ratings (numerical and narrative);

b. awards and decorations;

c. letters of commendation or reprimand;

d. combat service;

e. wounds received in action;

f. records of promotions and demotions;

g. level of responsibility at which the applicant served;

h. other acts of merit that may not have resulted in formal recognitions through an award or commendation;

i. length of service during the service period that is the subject of the discharge review;

j. prior military service and type of discharge received or outstanding post-service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review;

k. convictions by court-martial;

l. records of nonjudicial punishment;

m. convictions by civil authorities while a member of the service, reflected in the discharge proceedings or otherwise noted in the service records;

n. records of periods of unauthorized absence;

o. records relating to a discharge in lieu of court-martial.

2. Capability to serve, as evidenced by factors such as:

a. Total capabilities. This includes an evaluation of matters such as age, educational level, and aptitude scores. Consideration may also be given as to whether the individual met normal military standards of acceptability for military service and similar indicators of an individual's ability to serve satisfactorily, as well as ability to adjust to military service.

b. Family and personal problems. This includes matters in extenuation or mitigation of the reason for discharge that may have affected the applicant's ability to serve satisfactorily.

c. Arbitrary or capricious actions. This includes actions by individuals in authority which constitute a clear abuse of such authority and that, although not amounting to prejudicial error, may have contributed to the decision to discharge the individual or unduly influence the characterization of service.

d. Discrimination. This includes unauthorized acts as documented by records or other evidence.

---

PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION

Discussion

         After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents ¹ , facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the characterization of the applicant’s service is equitable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

         The applicant was discharged on 960830 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A, Part IV). On 960318, the applicant had his first NJP for UA at which half his punishment and his reduction in rate was suspended for six months. On 960626, his suspended punishment and reduction were vacated. On 960318, the applicant received a Retention Warning. On 960626, he had his second NJP for disrespect to a first class petty officer. On 960815, the applicant had his third NJP for assault. On 960815, he was informed of his commanding officer’s (CO’s) intention to recommend him for administrative separation (ADSEP) under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all NJPs within the current enlistment and for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJP on 960626 for disrespect to a petty officer and on 960815 for assault on another Sailor. The applicant chose to consult with legal counsel prior to waiving all his rights except the right to obtain copies of the documentation being forward to the separation authority in support of his ADSEP. On 960820, the applicant’s CO recommended him for ADSEP under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of serious offenses. On 960826, COMCARGRU SIX approved and directed the applicant’s discharge UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT (B, Part IV). On 960830, the applicant refused in-patient treatment for alcohol abuse prior to his ADSEP. The Board found the applicant’s discharge to be both proper and equitable (C and D, Part IV).

         In the applicant’s issue one, he proffers that personal, family and financial problems contributed to and sufficiently extenuated his misconduct of record to warrant separation under honorable conditions. While the Board sympathizes with his personal, family and financial problems at the time of his separation, there was nothing sufficient to mitigate the applicant’s record of misconduct. The Board finds that the applicant’s age, educational level, entry test scores, completion of recruit training, awards, decorations, previous honorable service, and advancement in grade demonstrated he had the capability to serve honorably and, as a result of his own actions, did not continue to do so. Relief will not be granted on the basis of this issue.

In the applicant’s second issue, he requests that the board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174c, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. While the Board recognizes that the applicant while the applicant cannot undo his past mistakes, he can contribute in a positive and significant way to society (D, Part IV). Contributions looked upon favorably by this Board include educational pursuits, employment track record, being a contributing member of society and making a positive impact in the community through volunteer work. The applicant must prove that his post-service conduct has been above reproach and he is making a valid attempt at making amends for the misconduct he committed during the period of naval service under review. The 15 year window during which applicants may appeal their discharges was established to allow time for establishing themselves and making these substantial, documented life style changes and community contributions which could offset and make amends for the misconduct of record. The applicant has submitted no supporting documentation that would warrant clemency.

Recorder’s Note:

¹ In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered: Copies of DD Form 214 (2).

---

PART VI - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

Decision

The 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues that 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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:

                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809.

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
                  Building 36 Washington Navy Yard
                  901 M Street, SE
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023.