ex-CTASA, USN
                                 ND07-00706

                  Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received:  20070427   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason:  PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT      Authority:   MILPERSMAN  1910-
140

Applicant’s Request:   Characterization change to:
                 Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:    1. Discharge was too harsh

                                  Decision

By a vote of  the Characterization shall read.
By a vote of  the Narrative Reason shall  PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

Date:  20071213              Location:  Washington D.C
Representation:

                                 Discussion

Issue 1  ().  Applicant admits that he needed to be disciplined for talking
back to an E-6, however, he contends that discharging him from the Navy was
too harsh of a punishment in light of the fact that he was doing well until
this point in his career.  The purpose of the administrative separation
process is to determine whether there is sufficient basis to discharge a
member from the military.  It is an administrative process that is not
intended to be punitive in nature, even though the consequences of getting
a general or other than honorable discharge may have adverse consequences.
The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge
individually, on a case-by-case basis.  If such a review reveals an
impropriety or inequity, relief is in order.  Regulations permit relief on
equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with
standards of discipline of the Naval service.  Based upon available
records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way
inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy.  A
preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the
Applicant engaged in a pattern of misconduct, that separation from the
Naval service was appropriate, and that a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge was warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant.  Normally,
to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred
during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question.  The
Board discovered no impropriety or inequity after a review of Applicant’s
case.  There is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable
discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good
conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The NDRB is
authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a
discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough
understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period
of service under review.  Examples of documentation that could be provided
to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment
records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a
substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil
authorities.  As of this time, the Applicant has not provided
any/sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the
misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of
Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut
the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.  After a
thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s
Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process
and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

            Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

        “GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the
DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

                             Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)   20010928 - 20020428         Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020429 Years Contracted:  ; Extension:        Date of
Discharge:  20050825
Length of Service:  03  Yrs  03  Mths  27  Dys     Lost Time:  Days UA:
Days Confined:
Education Level:   GED Age at Enlistment:    AFQT:  43   Highest Rank/Rate:
 CTA3
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):      Performance:  2.8(4)  Behavior:
2.0(4)       OTA:  2.71
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):  NDSM, GWOTSM

  Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or
                             Basis for Discharge

20050504:   NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 91 - Disrespect towards a Petty Officer
           First Class.
      Awarded - RIR (E-3).  Suspension vacated.

20050504:   Retention Warning for disrespect towards a PO1 as evidenced by
           your CO’s NJP held on 20050504.

20050810:   NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 91 - Disrespect to a Petty Officer First
           Class.
      Awarded - FOP ($692.25) for (2 months); RIR (E-2); Restr for (30
           days).

                              Discharge Process

Date Notified:                          NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Reason for Discharge:
Least Favorable Characterization:

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:          NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Rights Elected at Notification:
      Consult with Counsel
      Obtain Copies of Documents
      Submit Statement(s) (date)
      Administrative Board
      GCMCA review

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):    NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Separation Authority (date): NOT FOUND INRECORD
              Reason for discharge directed:
              Characterization directed:
Date Applicant Discharged:   20050825

      Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

Related to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:         Other
Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:
      Employment:                 Finances:                   Education:

      Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:
Criminal Records:
      Family/Personal Status:           Community Service:
References:

Additional Statements From Applicant:   From Representative:
Other Documentation (Describe)


                          Pertinent Regulation/Law

A.  Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective
26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF
MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval
Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211,
Regularity of Government Affairs, Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503,
Equity.


                  ADDENDUM:  Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures:  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 Instruction
1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of
that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP,
The Pentagon, Washington, DC  20301-4000.  You should read Enclosure (5) of
the Instruction 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 Instruction
1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at
“http://Boards.law.af.mil.”

Additional Reviews:  Subsequent to a document review, former members are
eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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.  If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years,
has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise
exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC
20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits:  The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for
post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.  There is no
requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of
obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a
foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities:  The Board has no authority to
upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or
educational opportunities.  Regulations limit the Board’s review to a
determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code:  Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over
reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any
other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a
reenlistment code.  Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR)
can make changes to reenlistment codes.  Additionally, the Board has no
authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing
reenlistment opportunities.  An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a
bar to reenlistment.  A request for a waiver can be submitted during the
processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct:  DoD disability regulations do not
preclude a disciplinary separation.  Appropriate regulations stipulate that
separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for
other reasons.  Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical
Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative
involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is
suspended.  The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending
the outcome of the non-disability proceedings.  If the action includes
either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical
board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record.
Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative
reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.”
Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of
narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an
unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time
or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service.  The
NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the
recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a
basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and
conduct during the period of service under review.  Examples of
documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of
educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of
community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and
certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD) – Because relevant and
material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the
NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence
of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.
With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the
NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.  Clemency is an act of
leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.

Board Membership:  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