Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01371
Original file (ND97-01371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BMSA, USN
Docket No. ND97-01371


 Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 970911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD-293.


Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 980908. The NDRB determined that the discharge equitably reflects the quality of service rendered. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
THIS SHELL IS FOR COSO.
THE FINDING FOR MISCONDUCT IS EFFECTIVE FOR 910815 - 930304 ONLY. A general discharge is written “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)”.
SPN CODE HKQ THE SPN CODE IS EFFECTIVE 860911 - 930627

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)


1.       MY O.T.H. DISCHARGE WAS INEQUITABLE, AND COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED WITH PROPER TREATMENT FOR MY ALCOHOL SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED NOR DOCUMENTED.
2.       I HAVE COMPLETED A 36 MONTHS SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM WITH ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS WHICH WAS DONE ON MY OWN ACCORD.
3.       ALL OF MY ENLISTED EVALUATIONS WERE OUTSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO MY RATE, THESE SAME EVALUATIONS SET ME IN THE TOP 5% OF MY DEPARTMENT AND CAN BE FOUND IN MY SERVICE JACKET.
4.       ALTHOUGH MY MILITARY SERVICE WAS NOT AS PROBLEM FREE AS I HOPED IT TO BE, THE DRIVE, DETERMINATION AND WORKING ATTITUDE I DEVELOPED IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF SERVICE , HAVE HELPED ME IN THE CIVILIAN WORLD.


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active:  USN                       None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880803 - 890725  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890726                        Date of Discharge: 920514

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                                   Years Contracted: 4 (1 YR EXT)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 51

 NEC: BM 0164                              Highest Rate: BM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.76 (5)    Behavior: 3.48 (5)                OTA: 3.56

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR,

Nonjudicial Punishment(s): 4              Court(s)-Martial: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 19

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:
UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1

 891204:  Joined USS FORT FISHER (LSD-40) San Diego, CA.

891205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 891116-891204 (19 days/S).
         Award: Forfeiture of $400, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

910828: Self-referral to medical to seek care/treatment for perceived problem with weekend drinking. Medical officer found applicant not alcohol dependent and recommended Level II treatment for alcohol abuse and attend AA if desired

910828:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: larceny of government property on or about 910609.
         Award: Forfeiture of $394, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction in rate to E-3 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
911205:  Punishment of reduction in rate to E-3 suspended at CO’s NJP on 910828 vacated due to continued misconduct.

911205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: attempt to sell stolen property, and Article 121: larceny of personal property on or about 911007.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

911231:  Referred by command for psychological evaluation because of numerous incidents of misconduct and accidents. Medical officer evaluation indicates applicant fit and suitable for duty, and responsible for actions. Historical, test, and interview data did not support existence of disabling mental disorder or severe personality disorder. Suicidal risk is judged to be low and acceptable. Father alcoholic.

920229:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: disobedience of a lawful general regulation on or about 920227.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per pay for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 35 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

 920325:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJPs of 910829 and 911205, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by NJPs of 891205, 910829, 911205, and 920229, and by reason of personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation dated 920309.
920326:          Applicant advised of his rights and, having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. Receipt acknowledged.
920327:  By unanimous vote, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Administrative Discharge Board found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, pattern of misconduct and personality disorder, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

920410:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Commanding Officer’s verbatim comments: BMSA T_’s history of NJPs demonstrates his total disregard toward Navy Regulations and unwillingness to conform to shipboard life. He has been given numerous chances to correct his behavior and display potential for further Naval Service, but has wasted each chance with his continued pattern of misconduct. BMSA T_ demonstrates no remorse for his actions nor does he deserve to continue his service in the Navy. He has been a severe administrative burden to this command and a detriment to the morale of the entire crew. I most strongly recommend that BMSA T_ be separated under other than honorable conditions.

920512:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

920514:  Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600.

RECORDER’S NOTES:

 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, effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT, states:

1. Basis. A member may be separated for misconduct when it is determined, under MILPERSMAN 3610200, that the member is unqualified for further military service by reason of one or more of the following circumstances:

a. 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 warrant a punitive discharge and not drug related) documented in the service record, within the current enlistment, which have been disciplined by not more than two (2) punishments under the UCMJ. The member must have violated counseling (3630600.2) prior to initiating processing. If the presented case exceeds these limits, including three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each, then process for pattern of misconduct or commission of a serious offense. Process drug abuse cases according to MILPERSMAN 3630620. 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 processing due to a pattern of misconduct or commission of a serious offense, the processing should be under Entry Level Performance and Conduct (MILPERSMAN 3630200).

b. Pattern of Misconduct

(1) A pattern of misconduct is defined in part as discreditable involvement with civil and naval authorities as evidenced by one or more of the following:

 (a) Two or more minor civilian convictions within the current enlistment, the latest civilian conviction and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command. (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which temporary duty (TEMDU) is authorized by Chief of Naval Personnel, are exempt from this requirement). Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(b) Three or more punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command. (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by Chief of Naval Personnel, are exempt from this requirement). Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(c) Any combination of three minor civilian convictions (misdemeanor(s) and or punishment(s)) under the UCMJ within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command. (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by Chief of Naval Personnel, are exempt from this requirement). Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(d) Three or more periods of unauthorized absence of more than 3 days duration each within the current enlistment, the latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command. (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by Chief of Naval Personnel, are exempt from this requirement). Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(e) Nine or more violations (e.g., specifications) of the UCMJ within the current enlistment which have been disciplined by punishment under the UCMJ. The latest offense and counseling to have occurred while assigned to the parent command. (Separation activities defined in MILPERSMAN 3640476, and other commands to which TEMDU is authorized by Chief of Naval Personnel, are exempt from this requirement). Members should be dual processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civilian conviction where appropriate.

(2) A member may also be separated for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by:

(a) A set pattern of failure to pay just debts. (Include financial statement prepared as specified in MILPERSMAN 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. Commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if:

(1) The specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation; and,

(2) A punitive discharge would be authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for the same or a closely related offense. Note that:

(a) If basis for offense is evidenced by a 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 discharge board. See Article 3610200.5a.

(b) If basis for offense is evidenced solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial convening authority has remitted or suspended a punitive discharge, forward case to the same convening authority for endorsement according to MILPERSMAN 3610200.5b.

d. Civilian Conviction

(1) Conviction by civilian authorities, or action taken which is equivalent to a finding of guilty, including similar adjudications in juvenile proceedings, when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and, (1) a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial, or (2) the sentence includes confinement for 6 months or more without regard to suspension or probation. In all cases, advise whether the member has appealed the conviction or not and, if not, the time limit within which member has to file an appeal. In addition, if the member has appealed, advise of its outcome or anticipated decision date.

(2) Separation processing may be initiated whether or not a member has filed an appeal of a civilian conviction or has stated an intention to do so. However, execution of an approved separation shall be withheld pending outcome of the appeal or until the time for appeal has passed, unless the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, or the member has requested separation and such requests have been approved by the Secretary of the Navy, who may direct that the member be separated before final action in the appeal.

(3) Misconduct due to civilian conviction. If member is convicted of a felony which includes a sentence to confinement for more than 1 year (whether suspended or not) or an offense involving sexual perversion, processing is mandatory.

2. Counseling and Rehabilitation

a. Separation processing for a series of minor disciplinary infractions or a pattern of misconduct may not be initiated until the member has been counseled by their parent command concerning deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. Only one counseling entry during the current enlistment by the parent command is required. Such efforts shall include the following and be documented in the member's service record by Page 13 entry (see NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1910.1).

(1) Written notification concerning deficiencies or impairments.

(2) Specific recommendations for corrective action indicating any assistance available.

(3) Comprehensive explanation of the consequences of failure to undertake successfully the recommended corrective action.

(4) Reasonable opportunity for the member to undertake the recommended corrective action.

b. Counseling and rehabilitation are not required if the reason for misconduct separation is commission of a serious offense, civilian felony, conviction or a similar juvenile adjudication.

3. Characterization or Description. Normally under Other Than Honorable Conditions, 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, and the separation is approved by Chief of Naval Personnel or higher authority. When characterization of service under Other Than Honorable Conditions 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 (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used; however, use of the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) is authorized for use when processing members for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

b. When a member is processed for separation for a commission of a serious offense or civilian conviction, the Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used.

c. Request that the member execute a signed Statement of Awareness and Request for or Waiver of Rights after his or her receipt of the Notice of Administrative Board Procedure Proposed Action. Use the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) for members processed for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

d. Forward the processed case by letter of transmittal to Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-83). Ensure the member's full name, rate and SSN have been indicated on each page of the case. Refer to NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1910.1 for the message submission option.

Note that if basis for misconduct is evidenced solely by a court-martial conviction and the court-martial convening authority has remitted or suspended a punitive discharge, forward case to the same convening authority for endorsement in accordance with MILPERSMAN 3610200.5.

e. Misconduct involving homosexuality shall be processed under MILPERSMAN 3630400. Misconduct involving a fraudulent entry shall be processed under MILPERSMAN 3630100. Misconduct involving drug abuse shall be processed under MILPERSMAN 3630620.

f. A member who is absent without authority may be processed under this article without returning to military control in the following circumstances:

(1) Absent without authority after receiving notice of initiation of separation processing.

(2) When prosecution of the member appears to be barred by the Statute of Limitations, Article 43 UCMJ, and the statute has not been tolled by any of the conditions set out in Article 43(d).

(3) When the member is an alien and appears to have gone to a foreign country where the United States has no authority to apprehend the member under treaty or other agreement.

g. A member of a reserve component who is on active duty and is within 2 years of becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military retirement system, may not be involuntarily released from that duty before they become eligible for that pay, unless their release is approved by the Secretary of the Navy.

h. In such cases as described in subparagraphs f(2) and f(3) of paragraph 5, the Notice required in either MILPERSMAN 3640200 or 3640300 shall:

(1) Specify date (not less than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice) in order to give the member the opportunity to return to military control and, if the member does not return to military control by such a date, that the separation process shall continue.

(2) Be sent to the member by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested (or by an equivalent form of notice if such service by U.S. Mail is not available for delivery at an address outside of the United States) to the member's last known address or the next of kin.

 B . Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92: disobedience of a lawful general regulation, and Article 121: larceny, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.
C . 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.”

 D . 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 which 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 document 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/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
         The applicant was discharged on 920514 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A and B, Part IV). On 891205, applicant received NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 891116-891204 (19 days/S). On 910828, applicant was awarded NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: larceny of government property on or about 910609. That same day applicant self-referred to medical for an alcohol abuse problem. The medical officer found no alcohol dependence, recommended Level II treatment for Alcohol Abuse and AA if desired. On 911205, the suspension of reduction in rate, awarded at CO’s Mast on 910828, was vacated, and applicant received NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: attempt to sell stolen property, and Article 121: larceny of personal property on or about 911007. The command referred the applicant for psychological evaluation because of numerous incidents of misconduct and accidents. The medical officer evaluation of 911231 found applicant fit and suitable for duty with no severe personality disorder and suicidal risk judged to be low and acceptable. Applicant received NJP on 920229 for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: disobedience of a lawful general regulation on or about 920227. On 920325, applicant was notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, and by reason of personality disorder as evidenced by a psychological evaluation dated 920309. On 920326, applicant acknowledged his rights and elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB). By unanimous vote on 920327, the ADB found applicant had committed a serious offense, pattern of misconduct, and personality disorder, and recommended separation under other than honorable conditions. The CO’s endorsement dated 920410 concurred with the ADB recommendation for characterization of discharge as other than honorable. On 920512, BUPERS directed applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and the discharge was affected on 920514. The Board found the applicant’s discharge to be both proper and equitable (C and D, Part IV).
         In applicant’s issues 1 and 2, he states that his “…O.T.H. discharge was inequitable, and could have been prevented with proper treatment for my alcohol substance abuse problem which was not addressed, nor documented. I have completed a 36 month substance abuse program with alcoholics anonymous which was done on my own accord.” Applicant’s self-referral for alcohol abuse is documented in his medical record along with a diagnosis of not alcohol dependent in which case treatment is not mandatory. Further, the Board does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant from the consequences of his misconduct, especially since none of the offenses were alcohol related. The applicant’s efforts in overcoming his alcohol problem are commendable; however, this was determined to be insufficient mitigation to overcome the conduct that resulted in his discharge.

        In the applicant’s remaining issues, he states that, “All of my enlisted evaluations were outstanding with regards to my rate, these same evaluations set me in the top 5% of my department and can be found in my service jacket. Although my military service was not as problem free as I hoped it to be, the drive, determination and working attitude I developed in the first two years of service, have helped me in the civilian world.” This issue implies a permissive doctrine whereby one in the military, in light of good service, is allotted misdeeds without penalty or stigma, regardless of how notorious the offense. There is no precedent within this Board’s review for minimizing or removing the misconduct of record. The general characterization is appropriate when service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member’s service record. Applicant’s enlisted evaluation marks, which the Board found to be average, do not mitigate the seriousness or frequency of his misconduct. Therefore the board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue. While 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 insufficient supporting documentation that would warrant clemency.
Recorder’s NoteS:

 1 In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of Employment Reference Letter.

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/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues which you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional documents 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     



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00511

    Original file (ND99-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.910412: USS HOLLAND (AS-32) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ and the civilian conviction during your current enlistment and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.910415: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00902

    Original file (ND02-00902.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00902 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020610, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.911212: Commanding Officer, Fighter Squadron 32 notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the punishments under the UCMJ in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01388

    Original file (ND97-01388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01388 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 921231: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, to the commission of a serious offense, and to drug abuse. 930119 Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00540

    Original file (ND99-00540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00540 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990309, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge to be changed to Honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to non-integration. Only two of those where on board the York-Town. A member may be separated for misconduct when it is determined, under MILPERSMAN 3610200, that the member is unqualified for further military service by reason of one or more of the following circumstances:a.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00197

    Original file (ND99-00197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00197 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981119, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used; however, use of the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) is authorized for use when processing members for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions or if characterization of service under Other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01340

    Original file (ND97-01340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01340 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 911219: Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - commission of a serious offense; authority Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600. When a member is processed for separation for a commission of a serious offense or civilian conviction, the Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01387

    Original file (ND97-01387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01387 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 910624: Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600. When a member is processed for separation for a commission of a serious offense or civilian conviction, the Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00837

    Original file (ND04-00837.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Administrative Board Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640300) shall be used; however, use of the Notification Procedure (MILPERSMAN 3640200) is authorized for use when processing members for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions or if characterization of service under Other Than Honorable Conditions is not warranted as described in MILPERSMAN...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01399

    Original file (ND97-01399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01399 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970918, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, and the reason for the discharge be changed to “Medical condition”. 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 processing due to a pattern of misconduct, or commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01398

    Original file (ND97-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND97-01398 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970915, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I recommend that AEAA W_ be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterization of other than honorable. 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 processing...