Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 039
Original file (2013 039.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2013-039

TIS 2 yrs, 1 month, 26 days

 

Policy Implications None

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant was discharged due to a voluntary request as part of a pretrial agreement for separation in lieu of
Special Court Martial proceedings. The applicant malingered and faked illnesses and other unsuitable factors to
avoid future sea duty upon graduation from “C” school. These actions stemmed from financial issues on
maintaining a security clearance to remain sea duty eligible.

The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The applicant had four senior leaders attempting
to steer the career in the right direction, instead the applicant chose to deceive them and a Medical Officer by
fabricating newfound medical conditions not seen prior to the possibility and probability of going to sea.

After the sequence of events in 2004, the applicant had a physical examination just one month prior to

separation in early 2005. On DD Forms 2808 and 2807-01, the applicant indicated none of the previous
ailments.

The applicant voluntarily and formally requested a separation for the ‘Good of the service’ on early 2005.
The Board does note that the DD-214 incorrectly cites the Separation Authority as COMDTINST M1000.6A,

Art 12.B.1. The correct (legacy) Personnel Manual citation should be Art 12.B.21 for the SPD code of KFS,
Triable By Court Martial.

Propriety: Discharge was proper.
Equity: Discharge was equitable.
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: No relief. An administrative change

will be made to the Separation Authority to read as COMDTINST M1000.6A, Art 12.B.21 for Legal
sufficiency.

Similar Decisions

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 024

    Original file (2014 024.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon notification of the command’s intent to discharge the applicant, the applicant made a statement and objected to discharge. Despite the pattern of indebtedness, the Board finds that the applicant’s Narrative Reason for Separation of Misconduct is not properly aligned with separations stemming from financial irresponsibility. Discharge: No change 25.

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 016

    Original file (2014 016.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CORRECTIONS TIS 3 yrs, 3 months, 6 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Unsuitability due to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure in the summer of 2006. On the equity standard, the board referred to ALCOAST 125/10, to make a recommendation on the Narrative Reason (NR) for his separation. The Board notes most or all separations occurring after said ALCOAST to present, only issue a JPD (SPD) code when the member is unable to complete outpatient...

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 032

    Original file (2014 032.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NJP results specify that the spouse had suffered a fractured nose and received stitches. The separation package does show an Honorable recommendation from the Sector, but this is due to the pattern of misconduct vice the voluntary plea on the application and supporting statements. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 048

    Original file (2013 048.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-048 Honorable, COMDTINST M100.6A, ART 12-B-12, JPD, Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, RE4 Upgrade RE code, Change Narrative Reason for Separation Partial relief: Recommend Narrative Reason is amended to: Separation for Miscellaneous/General Reasons. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure due to receiving two alcohol incidents in 2008- 2009. Therefore, the Board recommends the following...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 056

    Original file (2013 056.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-056 CURRENT DD-214 Honorable, COMDTINST M1000.6A, ART 12.B.18, JKA, Pattern of Misconduct, RE4 BY DRB to JHJ, RE code to RE-3Y, Narrative Reason to Unsatisfactory Performance CORRECTIONS TIS 1 yr, 6 months, 16 days Policy Implications None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Pattern Of Misconduct due to receiving two Non-Judicial punishments within a 2 year period. In 2010, the command initiated Discharge proceedings which made...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 037

    Original file (2013 037.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-037 Other Than Honorable, COMDTINST M1000.6, Art 12-B-21, KFS, For the good of the Service, RE4 Honorable None None TIS 7 yrs, 3 months, 23 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for For The Good Of The Service in the Spring of 2006. In early 2006, the applicant was facing Court Martial charges for failing to provide a valid urine sample during a unit urinalysis. The Board finds no issues with propriety...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 073

    Original file (2013 073.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After receiving two documented alcohol incidents in the Fall of 2004, an administrative remarks entry was documented in which the applicant refused to attend outpatient rehabilitation treatment for Level II Alcohol Abuse. Discharge | No Change 25. Narrative Reason | No Change

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 022

    Original file (2013 022.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board finds no issues with propriety and equity on this case. The board recommends no relief. As issued, the applicant received an Honorable discharge.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 051

    Original file (2013 051.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECCEN followed up in late 2006 to indicate that no improvement had been made to eliminate the sizable debt that the applicant had created over a significant amount of time. Additionally, the command formally counseled applicant on the need to change their rating for retention in the service. Discharge: No change | 25.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 029

    Original file (2013 029.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-029 NAME CURRENT DD-214 Uncharacterized, COMDTINST M1000.6A, ART 12.B.20, JGA, Entry Level Separation, RE3L BY DRB CORRECTIONS / 7 _ TIS Policy Implications O yrs, 0 months, 18 days None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged with an entry level separation due to the inability to adapt during the first 180 days of service. The applicant claims that have had a moment of weakness during the 18 days while at boot camp. In the application,...