Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00586
Original file (ND99-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GSMFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00586

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990319, 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 991221. 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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. I don't want to remove blame from myself and in no way do I want to justify my actions. I was a very troubled young man that needed help at this time in my life. What I would like, is to shed some light on the situation and show that it was easier for the Officers in charge of my division to get rid of me, rather than help me. The reason I didn't make this an issue then, is that I was tired of it all and wanted to get away. Also that the help that was offered in an attempt to salvage me as a human being was ignored.
The evaluation that I have labeled as #1 is the first thing that I would like to draw attention to. In section # 56 there are some statements made that were simply untrue. I have labeled these statements with letters that will correspond to my statements on this page.
A:       Until my discharge I was given the Port watch in the Oil Lab while at sea. This watch started at 2000 hrs. and ended at 0800 hrs. I was the only man that worked the Oil Lab at this time and was never once reprimanded for any lack of performance. I was also the #1 Nozzle-man on the at sea fire fighting team until my discharge, this I would not suspect is a position that would be given to the man described in this statement. I was #1 man on our ship shoring, patching and plugging team in my G. Q. section, this would be an odd job for someone you couldn’t count on to do a job unsupervised.
 B:       I can’t argue with the fact that my uniform was usualy something that needed to be taken care of. Due to that fact that I had a drinking problem at the time, money was not available to replace uniforms. This was my fault and needed to be corrected by me. The only time I wore jewelry other than a wrist watch was when I was in civilian clothing. This statement came out of an altercation at a party that was started by the Chief Warrant Officer in our dept. over an earring that I had in my collar of my shirt. I had taken it out of my ear before getting to the party because I knew that it would upset him and others. Another man involved in that fight was Chief Engineman Soar, who later was man enough to apologize to me for this. Lt. E---r was also there cheering these men on as they attempted to beat me into submission. I was lucky enough to have friends that stopped it and got me out of there. There is no name on this evaluation stating who actually wrote it but you can bet it was one of these men.
C:       Please keep in mind that while at sea I was never relieved from my watch to eat until 0800 hrs. This would make it very hard to eat and then make muster as quickly as others would. I would also fail inspection at this point because I had been working all night in the uniform I was wearing. I will also admit that by this time my attitude was one that really didn’t care to please the men in charge of me.
 D:       See statement in A
E:       My reassignment from the Oil King work center lasted only as long as we were in port. Then I was always conveniently given another chance and placed on this highly undesirable watch. Which by the way I enjoyed because I would be left alone. The down side was that while at sea I averaged 4 hrs of sleep per day due to the fact that I was in charge of the refueling manifold in one of the engineering spaces (by myself), I was also on the team that helped receive stores at sea and I ran the pumps (by myself) that refueled helicopters while in flight with JP5; this is a lot of responsibility for the man described in this document. I did have to spend the night in jail for not paying a traffic violation. I didn’t make arraignments with the civil authorities before we went to Cuba. I made the mistake of thinking I could take care of it when I returned to port. This was my fault. The other violation is a long rather humorous story that was cleared up later with out me getting into any trouble.
 F:       This is true. I did however go to the Petty Officer that was the head of the AA group on ship and asked for help. Unfortunately I had caused enough trouble that I was ignored. I can only wish I had sought help sooner.
 G: To justify this statement they had one Petty Officer talk to me for about two minutes. The only discussion I can ever remember my division officer having with me was how he would rip my earring out of my ear if he ever saw me wear it.
 -        The professional counseling that was never scheduled was the result of the only man who tried to help me on this ship. The Captain. It was at the end of a Mast hearing that the ships Captain (I believe it was Commander M_) asked me if I would go and see a counselor at Jax Air Base and try to get help if he ordered it. My response was that I would like to do that. The Captain looked straight at Lt. E--r and told him to see that this was done before we went on our Med. Cruise. This was never done. I realize now that I should have asked about it, but I wanted to be as far away from these men as I could be. So I never checked and my attitude grew worse.
 H:       No person ever had to assume my duties unless it was to provide some kind of proof in a logbook for a statement like this one.
The Evaluation labeled as #2 section #56 is the next document that I would like to address.

 This evaluation is for the most part true and accurate I am ashamed to say. I can only try to explain the situation that led up to this unacceptable behavior by me.
We had been at sea for a record 67 days before this incident took place. After the Captains Mast took place in which it was ordered that I be scheduled professional counseling at Jax Air Base, I was restricted to the ship and given extra duty. These punishments were lifted when we left port and placed back into effect when we entered a port. We left for our Med. cruise and headed for Beirut. I was restricted to the ship in Naples, Italy and Alexandria, Egypt. During my restriction I was made to sweep the quarterdeck while my shipmates were returning to the ship from their liberty. This punishment and the fact that we were almost in a constant state of General Quarters the entire time we were in the Med. Due to the fact that at this time the Marine Barracks had recently been blown up. I can remember getting off my watch at 0800 and going into general quarters until the afternoon. I would then get aprox 2 hrs. of sleep and would then be on watch. On watch I was scared to sleep for the simple fact that there were officers that would love to catch me. I lost over 30 lbs. on this cruise and I was in no way fat before the cruise. This was a common schedule for me. Especially considering all of the at sea details I was a part of. I now realize that the mental state this kind of continues treatment will place any man in; is extremely volatile.
I honestly believe that if I had been given the opportunity to spend some time with a counselor as was ordered but never done. I would probably have been in a detox when the ship went out to sea and been given a fresh start on my life. It is quite possible that I would still be in the Navy today. I did love being at sea.
 Another thing that would have been discovered in counseling was later
 discovered when I sought professional counseling as a civilian. I have been diagnosed with a learning disorder that is called ADD. This is not an excuse for my actions, only an understanding of how it got this far. This knowledge could have allowed me to seek the help that I needed to become a productive and sober member of society. Instead, the brutal way that the Officers in charge of me handled it I grew to not care. Had it not been for Jesus Christ, the wonderful woman that I married, and the support of my family; I don’t know where I would be.
 I will not try to convince you that I was the ideal sailor. In fact I am ashamed at some of the things that I did. But I am also proud of the fact that everything I did for the Navy (job wise), I was one of the best when I did it. Otherwise I would not have been given the kind of responsibilities I was given. I did not deserve to be treated in this manner by the men I was supposed to look up to. I did not deserve to be forced to fight with the Officers in charge of my division because I chose to wear an earring off the ship. No one deserves to be place under the kind of workload at sea that I was and then as punishment be made to watch his shipmates return from a good time. I did not deserve to be denied the professional counseling that was offered to me and ordered by my Captain. Many things that were said about me would contradict the records of that time period if truthful ones could be found. I however couldn’t obtain this type of records. You however can obtain my medical records and see that the order given by my Captain was in fact ignored.
 Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal and God Bless.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
 Enlisted performance evaluation report for the period 21DEC82-28SEP83
Enlisted performance evaluation report for the period 83SEP28-
Personal reference labeled 3a from Ms. M_ F. J_
 Personal reference labeled 3b from Mr. D_ C_
Applicant’s work history
Letter from applicant, undated

 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        NONE
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     811219 - 820222  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 820223               Date of Discharge: 840321

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24month extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 80

 Highest Rate: GSMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.4 (2)     Behavior: 2.5 (2)                 OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSD, NEM, EXPERT RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP, EXPERT PISTOL MARKSMANSHIP

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

820301   Applicant signed statement of understanding of Navy drug abuse program.

820729:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault and battery.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 7 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
000000:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency, notified of corrective actions and assistance available (Signed by applicant but not dated).

830928:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on or about 1100, 22SEP83 until about 1630, 23SEP83 (1 day).
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 5 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
830928   Recommendation for advancement to E-4 removed due to continued misconduct.

830930:  Retention Warning from USS FAHRION (FFG 22): Advised of deficiency (Continued misconduct), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

831026:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
840206:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongful use of provoking words to a senior petty officer, Article 128 (2 Specs); Assaulting a Petty Officer(hitting a Petty Officer with his fists), Article 109; Wrongful destruction of non-government property (destroying a Turkish foreign national’s boat window), Article 134; Drunk and disorderly in a public place.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. Forfeiture of $366.45 pay per month for two months. No indication of appeal in the record.
840211:  USS FAHRION (FFG 22) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct- Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities as evidenced by four non-judicial punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment. [Extracted from CO’s msg dated 010800Z MAR 84]
840213:  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. [Extracted from CO’s msg dated 010800Z MAR 84]
840228:  Applicant evaluated by competent medical authority determined applicant as not dependent on alcohol and not recommended for further Naval service. [Extracted from CO’s msg dated 010800Z MAR 84]
840301:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct – Pattern - frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

840321:  Applicant discharged under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct - Pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 840321 under Other Than Honorable conditions for Misconduct, Pattern, frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (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).

In the applicant’s issues A through H, derived from the evaluation labeled by the applicant #1, the Board determined these are non-decisional issues, requiring no comment. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issues derived from the evaluation labeled by the applicant’s evaluation labeled #2, the Board determined these issues are without merit. The applicant claims he was one of the best at his Navy job, he had an unfairly high workload at sea and the punishment of watching his shipmates return from a good time, while he was restricted to the ship, was undeserved. The applicant’s evaluations, contained in his record, describe a below average performer. Additionally, there is no doubt that at sea he may have had a high workload, as do most sailors, but they don’t resort to assaulting their shipmates or violating the UCMJ as a means of coping with the stress. In regards to his last issue, punishment is not meant to be pleasant but to serve as a deterrent to individuals repeating whatever misconduct they were guilty of. Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/83, effective
05 Nov 83 until 04 Nov 84), 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 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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 1998-087appendices

    Original file (1998-087appendices.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant! About 11:00 p.m., [the applicant and J.M.] [The applicant and J.M.]

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00971

    Original file (ND04-00971.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00971 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040527. No indication of appeal in the record.980818: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.980818: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00011

    Original file (ND04-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00011 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“1). INJUSTICE: Punishing me twice after already serving my punishment and time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00543

    Original file (ND04-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Within 3-days he realized that he was having the same problem as I had and changed the watch schedule so that he had a day watch and could get more sleep.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00997

    Original file (ND04-00997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00997 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040603. * (see medical issues documents). It was up until during the time of the cruise (U.S.S.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00772

    Original file (ND99-00772.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00772 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to administrative. Although you must have an Honorable Discharge to receive the benefits, I believe that I did have honorable service for 3 1/2 of my 4 years in the Navy. Although you must have an Honorable Discharge to receive the benefits, I believe...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01444

    Original file (ND03-01444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT CAPTAIN MASS AND HE INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP 3 TIMES AND THAT IT SHOWS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND HE RECOMMEND THAT I BE DISCHARGED UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500027

    Original file (ND0500027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The ride out to sea was on my part life threatening, Every time I went underway aboard this destroyer I had to be confined to my rack from seasickness. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and issues submitted the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600115

    Original file (ND0600115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). After this time we were getting ready to ship out on the 2 nd West Pac. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00408

    Original file (ND04-00408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. In spite of all my problems, I didn’t abuse drugs or alcohol. By this time I had been away from home for several months, away from my friends and what little family I had.