Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01398
Original file (ND97-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AEAA, USN
Docket No. 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. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review and listed his aunt as his private representative on the DD-293.


Summary of Review

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 980928. The NDRB determined that the discharge equitably reflects the quality of service rendered. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
SPN CODE HKA
THIS IS THE CORRECT SHELL FOR Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct. 910815 - 930304 ONLY.
THE FINDING FOR MISCONDUCT, (3630600) EFFECTIVE 910815 - 930304 ONLY. THE SPN CODE IS EFFECTIVE 860911 - 930627.
 A general discharge is written UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES (verbatim)

1


 1. I feel that I could have had a condition known as “Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features”, which could have resulted in my discipline problems with in the Navy.

2. Copies of disclipine reports showing what kind of things that was going on during my enlistment in the Navy.

3. Notice showing why I was discharged from the Navy.
RECORDER’S NOTE:

 1 The applicant marked Block 8.a to indicate that he had listed additional issues as an attachment to his DD Form 293. [Additional issues NFIR.]

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active:  None
         Inactive:        USNR (DEP)                881221 - 890221  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890222                        Date of Discharge: 920323

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                                   Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 34

 NEC: AE 0000                              Highest Rate: AEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (1)    Behavior: 3.40 (2)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM and SASM

 Nonjudicial Punishment(s): 3              Court(s)-Martial: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge:
UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART III - CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT SERVICE EVENTS1

 891115:  Joined   STRIKE FIGHTER SQUADRON 106 (VFA-106) at NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, FL.
900308:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) (unspecified), and Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey (unspecified).
         Award: Correctional Custody Unit (CCU) for 30 days, forfeiture of $405 for one month, and reduction to E-1. Reduction suspended for six months. There was no indication of an Appeal in the record.
900308:  Medically fit for confinement; joined CCU at NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, FL.
900320:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (NJP); notified of corrective actions and assistance available; advised of the consequences of further deficiencies and issued a discharge warning. Receipt acknowledged.

900406:  Completed CCU; returned to full duty at VFA-106.

 900411:  Joined VFA-123 at NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, FL

910315:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (sleeping on line watch which was dismissed at XOI); notified of corrective actions and assistance available; advised of the consequences of further deficiencies and issued a discharge warning. Receipt acknowledged.

910716:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty (unspecified).
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 for one month, and extra duty for 15 days. There was no indication of an appeal in the record.
910812:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (NJP); notified of corrective actions and assistance available; advised of the consequences of further deficiencies and issued a discharge warning. Receipt acknowledged.

910924:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (continual problem with representing yourself in the proper manner on liberty, to wit: shore patrol report on incident involving Spanish authorities in Magaluf, Spain); notified of corrective actions and assistance available; advised of the consequences of further deficiencies and issued a discharge warning. Receipt acknowledged.

920220:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): UA (unspecified).
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 for one month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, and reduction to E-2. There was no indication of an appeal in the record.
920221:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all NJPs during this enlistment. Receipt acknowledged.
920224:          Applicant advised of his rights and having chosen 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. Applicant objected to separation. Receipt acknowledged.
920224:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Commanding officer’s verbatim comments: AEAA W_ does not possess any potential for further naval service. This is his third NJP, with both his previous NJP’s involving UA. Numerous man-hours of counseling, disciplining and administering have been spent on AEAA W_, with no behavioral improvement. He lacks self-discipline and respect for those in authority. I recommend that AEAA W_ be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterization of other than honorable. A re-enlistment code of RE-4 should be assigned.

920317:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920323:  Discharged UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct; authority Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600.
RECORDER’S NOTE:

 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. The 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.”
C. The 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.

D. The 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, states, in part:

“2.5 Authority for Review of Naval Discharges; Jurisdictional Limitations

a.       The Board shall have no authority to:
(1)      review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial;

(2) alter the judgement of a court-martial, except that the discharge or dismissal awarded may be changed for purposes of clemency;

(3)      revoke any discharge or dismissal;
(4) reinstate a person in the Naval Service;

(5) recall a former member to active duty;

(6) change a reenlistment code;

(7) make recommendations for reenlistment to permit entry in the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces;

(8) cancel or void enlistment contracts; or

(9) change the reason for discharge from or to a physical disability.

 b. Review of naval discharge shall not be undertaken in instances where the elapsed time between the date of discharge and the date of receipt of application for review exceeds fifteen years. ”


PART V - RATIONALE FOR DECISION
Discussion
         After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents 1 , facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and that the characterization of the applicant’s service was equitable. The discharge shall remain : UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
         The applicant was discharged on 920323 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A, Part IV). On 900308, the applicant had his first NJP for UA and failure to obey a lawful order. On 900320, he received his first Retention Warning. On 910315, the applicant received his second Retention Warning. On 910716, he had his second NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. On 910812, the applicant received his third Retention Warning. On 910924, he received his fourth Retention Warning. On 920220, the applicant had his third NJP for UA. On 920221, he was informed of his commanding officer’s (CO’s) intention to recommend him for administrative separation (ADSEP) under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all his NJPs during this enlistment. The applicant chose not to consult with legal counsel prior to electing to receive copies of the documentation being forwarded to the discharge authority in support of his ADSEP. The applicant objected to his separation. On 920224, the applicant’s CO recommended him for ADSEP under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and due to a pattern of misconduct. On 920317, BUPERS directed the applicant’s discharge UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct. The Board found the applicant’s discharge to be both proper and equitable (B and C, Part IV).

          In the applicant’s issue 1, he writes, “I feel that I could have had a condition known as ‘Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features’, which could have resulted in my discipline problems with in the Navy.” The Board has no authority to change the reason for a discharge to or from a physical condition (D, Part IV). Additionally, the Board points out that the appellant’s diagnosis of a bipolar condition was made sometime around 1994 and almost two years after the applicant was discharged from the Navy.

 In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, he writes, “Copies of disclipine reports showing what kind of things that was going on during my enlistment in the Navy. Notice showing why I was discharged from the Navy.” The Board noted these issues and confirmed the information in the applicant’s service record. However, there is nothing in these issues upon which to base relief.
Recorder’s NoteS:

 1 In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Eastside Mental Health Center, Birmingham, AL letter dtd 970515
Copy of authorization for release of information to NDRB from Eastside Mental Health Center
Extracts from service record (11 pages).

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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues that 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | ND97-01387

    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 | 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 | ND99-00197

    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 | 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 | 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 | ND97-01371

    Original file (ND97-01371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: 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...

  • 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...