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


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


ex-AZAN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00167

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20011101. The Applicant requests the Discharge 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060908 . 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 sh all remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

---

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and on the attached letter:

“A. I feel the type of discharge I received was not a fair discharge and did not reflect the character of my overall service. My ability to serve was temporarily impaired by psychological/medical problems brought on brought on by exhaustion and stress. I received no treatment of counseling from my chain of command nor from medical professionals.
B. I had one previous Honorable Discharge and my record shows that I received regular promotions on time and that I received several awards for service. My performance of duties could only be described as excellent for the vast majority of my service (Incl 9.) I had been a good service member until near the end of my service obligation, when I had a very regrettable lapse in judgment by going AWOL to try to repair my marriage. Later, relatively minor infractions, caused mainly by exhaustion and my degraded mental state compounded the error in judgment .
C. When I was charged with the offenses for which I was discharged, I was not in a mental state that would allow me to make reasonable and intelligent decisions. I chose the discharge “to make the problems go away” because I did not have the ability to cope at the time. With only about three month left remaining on my enlistment, and the ability to make sound decisions seriously impaired, I took the easy way out, without regard to the lasting implications of the type of discharge I was given. I do not believe the discharge I received was appropriate for the offenses for which I was charged. I neither harmed nor imperiled anyone, did not cause damage or loss to the government, the Navy or any person, and was always obedient and respectful to my superiors.”

“To Whom It May Concern:

My name is D_ R_ Q_ (Applicant). I am petitioning the Naval Council of Personnel Boards for an upgrade to my less than honorable discharge in March 1995. The following information is provided for your consideration.

While I was still in High School I enlisted in the US Navy. I graduated in July 1987 and left for boot camp three days later. After boot camp, I was sent to a Naval Base in Tennessee to learn aircraft electrical mechanics. This did not work out, so I went back to Washington State sooner than expected. For the next three years, I served in the US Navy Reserve. For one weekend each month and two weeks each summer, I did clerical work for the mechanics at Whidbey Island Naval Base. The balance of my time was spent working temporary civilian jobs. In January 1991, I agreed to serve on the USS John F. Kennedy, which was stationed off Iraq. This tour of duty was completed in March, 1991. On the way home, I decided to join the Navy full time. This became official in June 1991. I eventually reached the grade of E-4 after sustaining excellent performance records. In September of 1992, I flew to Virginia to board the USS Kennedy again, and spent six months serving off the coast of Italy. My next assignment was in August of 1993 to the USS Nimitz in Bremerton, Washington. Soon after arrival there, I was promoted to the rank of E-5. Through my almost eight years in the Navy, I received the following awards: Naval Reserve Meritorious Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with two Bronze Stars, and the Kuwait Liberation Medal. I also received a Navy Unit Commendation (mcI 10.) In March 1995, I was discharged from the Navy (lncl 10.)

My enlistment obligation to the United States Navy was to be complete in June 1995. Due to some disciplinary difficulties I encountered, my enlistment was cut short by three months, and I was discharged under other than honorable conditions. The events and circumstances leading to that discharge are as follows. A few months before being discharged early, I was working twelve to fourteen hours a day, six days a week. Every fourth Sunday I had guard duty. Due to the number of hours I was working, I had very little time to spend with my wife and stepson, and my marriage began to erode. After a long period of difficulty with the marriage, my wife and stepson left unexpectedly to live in Maine, and I began having trouble sleeping. With the long hours I was working, my mental health also started to suffer.

On September 17, 1994, I was assigned to perform guard duty. About 7:00 AM, near the end of my tour of duty, I began to feel dizzy and nauseous. I sat down to put my head between my knees to keep from fainting, and fell asleep from exhaustion. After about twenty minutes, another guard awakened me, then reported the incident to the Officer of the Day. As punishment, I was warned that if I got in trouble again in the next six months, half of one month’s pay would be taken away, and I would be reduced in rank by one grade (IncI 9a.) I had been recommended for promotion 3 days prior to this incident, and I had received excellent performance ratings (4.0) only two days before the incident (IncI 9.)

About six weeks later, I asked for leave to go to Maine to see my wife and stepson. The request was denied. This was extremely distressing to me, and I seemed not to be able to stay on track. As I was previously always a conscientious sailor, the problem I had with guard duty was bothering me, lack of sleep was effecting my judgement, and my overall mental condition was not good. The combination of these factors, compounded by unresolved problems with my marriage, caused me to go AWOL to go to Maine to see my wife. I was not successful in persuading her to return with me, and my depression worsened. I could not seem to bring myself to return to duty on my own. Finally, friends convinced me that I must do this, and I returned on December 17, 1994. Before my Captain spoke with me, I was asked if I wanted to speak with someone regarding my problems. I stated that I would like to speak to a clergyman. My request was granted, and after spending two hours with him, I mentioned that I felt that additional sessions would be very helpful to me. I did not see him again, nor did any of my immediate chain of command counsel me during this time. In essence, I was given no advice, guidance or counseling during this time, in effect, left to my own devices to take me through a very stressful time in my life. I know now that I was not capable of making rational, intelligent life decisions during the last six months of my service, and that I should have asked for legal assistance to help me.

This second infraction caused the conditions of my first sentence to be upheld, and I was reduced to pay grade E-3 and I also lost half my pay for three months. Additionally, I was restricted to the ship for thirty days and had to pass muster four times every day (IncI 9b.) By this time, it had become clear to me that my marriage was beyond repair and that my continued service in the Navy could possibly lead to further difficulties. During this time, to lower their manpower strength, the Navy was widely advertising encouragement for members to leave active service before their enlistments were up. I asked for an early discharge, which was denied. Following the denial, my problems seemed to grow out of control. I was considered late three times for the noon hour muster, even though I was there well before noon in each case. The MP who was taking the roll started to call names earlier and earlier each day, always before noon. Because of this, I was considered late, even though I reported before the set time. As additional punishment, I was required to stand by the MP’s counter at Parade Rest for thirty minutes, beginning at 5:00 AM, for five days. Again, I was late twice, and as punishment was reduced one more grade to E-2, sent to the brig on bread and water for three days, and lost one month’s pay (mci 9d & e.) I had no further problems, and I was discharged on March 22, 1995 under other than honorable conditions (mcI 10.) During these last several weeks of service, and in particular, the period that I was having the “misconduct” problems, I never received any face to face counseling, advice, guidance or support from any members of my chain of command, immediate supervisors, peers, clergy or medical staff. In retrospect, it seems that I was almost being set up to fail, even though I admit my own faults contributed to my performance, and the resulting punishments. Through this whole period, I was never disobedient or disrespectful to my superiors, and I performed my punishments as best I could under the circumstances. It was especially troubling to me because I truly loved the Navy and had decided earlier to make it my career.

After my discharge, my depression worsened, and I lost a great deal of my self-respect and had a very low feeling of self worth. I felt unemployable, and in fact, had no real sense of self direction for nearly two years. Again, thanks to the help of good friends, I began to feel better about myself, and in 1998 I found a job that was well suited for me and my capabilities. The job led to a new marriage and family, new friends, goals and opportunities. I am now regarded as a good citizen and a valuable member of the community (mcI 2-8.) Despite a disabling stroke after my discharge, I strive to be involved and care for my family and friends. My failure to succeed in my service to the US Navy and the nation is a continuing problem for me and fills me with regret. I pray that some portion of that black mark on my life can somehow be lifted.

I know that I could have and should have managed my personal problems better. I allowed them to shadow the rest of my service and lead to punishments that I now believe were in some part contrived to force the final outcome. I do admit that I left without authorization, and that I had problems coping with the restrictions and conditions of the punishments imposed by my Captain. I also believe, however, that to some extent was set up to fail some of the conditions of the punishment, and that some of the charges against me were “stacked” to build a case for discharge, when I could easily have just been administratively eliminated from the Navy without the stigma of a less than honorable discharge. I had no infractions for violent or other illegal activities, did not damage any personal or Navy property, did not steal, misappropriate, or hazard any personal or Navy property, harmed no other person and had an excellent performance record until the last several months of my service (Incl 9.) I do not believe that my offenses warranted a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

I respectfully request that my records be reviewed and that favorable consideration be given to my request for an upgrade of my discharge. I thank the Board for their time and consideration

Sincerely,

[signed] D_ R_ Q_ (Applicant)”

Applicant’s Remarks: Taken from the DD Form 293 to the Board:

“Please note that my letters of reference address me as D_ R. K_. This represents the traditional Norwegian spelling of my ancestor’s name. On the occasion on my divorce from my former wife in April of 2001, I had the opportunity to legally change it and did so. I now use this traditional spelling in all facets of my life, and all my friends, co- workers and family now know me and address me by that name.”

Documentation

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

Character Reference ltr from E_ B. Q_ Jr., dtd October 18, 2005
Character Reference ltr from M _ M_ Q_, dtd October 18, 2005
Character Reference ltr from E_ S_, dtd October 18, 2005
Character Reference ltr from R_ S_, dtd October 18, 2005
Character Reference ltr from P_ H_, dtd May 8, 2005
Character Reference ltr from M_ B_, dtd July 2, 2005
Character Reference ltr from N_ F. O_, dtd May 8, 2005
Enlisted Performance Record
Administrative Remarks Page 13 from service record showing nonjudicial punishment
Court Memorandum Page 7 from service record (4 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Ltr from Washington State Patrol, dtd December 8, 2005 (2 copies)
Ltr from Cascade Regional Blood Services, undated

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

         Inactive: USNR(IADT)     19870615 – 19880122               HON
         Inactive: USNR             19880123 – 19910111               HON
         Active: USN                19910112 – 19910806               HON

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 19910807             Date of Discharge: 19950322

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 07 15 (Does not include lost time.)
         Inactive: None

Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: 2 9 days
         Confinement:              03 days

Age at Entry: 22

Years Contracted: 2 (25 month extension)

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 82

Highest Rate: AZ2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 3. 91 (7)             Behavior: 3. 74 (7)                OTA: 3 . 89

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 w/2 Bronze Star, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Navy Unit Commendation, Kuwait Liberation Medal, Naval Reserve Meritorious Service

---

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910807:  Reenlisted this date for a term of 2 years.

940917:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duties by willfully, failing to stay awake while on watch on or about 17 September 1994.
         Award: Forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

941121:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 941121.

941218:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1730 on 941218 (27 days/surrendered).

950111:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized Absence.
         Specification: From 0700, 94 NOV21 until 1730, 94 DEC 18. Failing to go at the time prescribed to appointed place to duty on or about 94 NOV 20 and 94 NOV 21.
         Award: Forfeiture of $661.00 pay per month for 2 months (Forf $661.00 ppm x 1 month suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

950111:  Forfeiture of pay and reduction in pay grade awarded at NJP on 940 917 vacated due to continued misconduct.

950218   Forfeiture of pay and reduction in pay grade awarded at NJP on 950111 vacated due to continued misconduct.

950218:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 specs): Unauthorized absence.
         Specifications: Failing to go to appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on or about 950131 and 95 Feb 02, 95 Feb06, 95 Feb07, and 95 Feb 08. Award: Confinement for 3 days on bread and water and reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

950218:  Applicant to confinement

950220:  Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

950221:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge , and if approved, the characterization of service may be Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of Article 92, willful dereliction in the performance duties.

950221:  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.
         Applicant did not object to separation.

950227:  Commanding Officer, USS NIMITZ, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, willful dereliction in the performance of duties. Commanding Officer’s comments: “SNM was awarded NJP on 94 SEP 17 for VUCMJ, Art 92, willful dereliction in the performance of duties on 94 SEP 17. SNM was again awarded NJP on 95 JAN 11 for VUCMJ, Art 86, (3 Specs), UA from 0700, 94 NOV 21 to 1730, 94 DEC 18; failure to go to appointed place of duty on 94 NOV 20 & 94 NOV 21. SNM was finally awarded NJP on 95 FEB 18 for VUCMJ, Art 86, (5 Specs), failure to go to appointed place of duty on 95 JAN 31; 95 FEB 02; 95 FEB 06; 95 FEB 07 and 95 FEB 08. SNM’s serious misconduct cannot be tolerated and is detrimental to good order and discipline of this command and the Navy. I strongly recommend that SNM be separated from the Naval Service with characterization of service as Other Than Honorable. ”

950304:  Separation Package forwarded to BUPERS.

950317:  BUPERS, d irected the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

---

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950322 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by his family situation. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. Relief denied.

The Applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 92 (willful dereliction of duty). In addition, the Applicant had 2 suspended punishments from nonjudicial punishments vacated for continued misconduct. His violation of Article 92 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge would be authorized at courts martial. 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 following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered. The Applicant provided two letters of recommendation from former supervisors, several personal recommendations from friends and family, a letter from Washington State Patrol showing that he has no infractions in that jurisdiction, and a letter from Cascade Regional blood services showing that he has donated blood as documentation of post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, and documentation of community service. 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. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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. 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), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 (willful dereliction of duty).

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