Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1998_Navy | ND98-01302
Original file (ND98-01302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RMSA, USN
Docket No. ND98-01302
Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 980923, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any person or organization as her representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990920. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced four issues in block 8 on the DD Form 293.

1. “I was young when I made the mistakes that I made. I did not realize what effect a general discharge could have. I feel that the entire time I spent in the Navy should not be judged on a couple of incidents that I was punished for at the time of occurrence.”

2. “I was forced to accept the general discharge and a RE code 4 without being advised of the seriousness of either.”

3. “If I had been counseled at the time of the incidents I would have been able to continue on with my naval career.”

4. “I committed the second offense in October of 1991 and was punished for it at that time. There was no mention at that time that I would be processed out, and that action did not begin until many months later. I feel that I was denied the opportunity to finish the remaining year of my enlistment.”


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.

Detailed statement of the circumstances of the incidents in question.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890428 – 890720  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890721                Date of Discharge: 920715

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 25
         Inactive: 00 00 00

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

Highest Rate: RMSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.50 (4)    Behavior: 2.65 (4)                OTA : 2.84

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

891128:  Dropped from HM “A” school for academic reasons and reassigned to RM “A” school.
901019:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation (Did on or about 901003 having knowledge of her duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she willingly failed to process 68 messages as it was her job to do, instead placing said messages in burn bag.)
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
901204:  Retention warning: Advised of deficiency (dereliction of duties), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

910212:  Record of counseling: Personal behavior (False accusations).

910315:  Record of counseling: Personal behavior (Excessive personal phone calls).

910423:  Record of counseling: Personal behavior (Excessive personal phone calls during work hours).
910617:  Record of counseling: Personal behavior and performance (Not telling the truth and falsifying Unit History).

910715:  Record of counseling: Performance and personal behavior (Keeping documents in a cabinet and not filed).
911029:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation.
         Award: Written reprimand and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

920316:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense.
920319:          Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
920430:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under Honorable conditions (General).

920430:  Applicant accepted discharge under Honorable conditions (General).

 920519:  Commanding officer notification of discharge under Honorable conditions (General), by reason of Misconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “RMSA (applicant) is being discharged due to misconduct for commission of a serious military offense as evidenced by 2 NJP’s for violation of UCMJ Article 92. She has become a constant administrative burden to her chain of command and further retention is not warranted. RMSA (applicant) is being separated locally with a General Discharge under reference (b) (CNO Washington 201615Z Feb 87). She does not object to the Administrative Board’s findings or to the characterization of her discharge.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920715 under Honorable conditions (General) for Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level and test scores qualified her for enlistment. While she may feel that her immaturity was a factor that contributed to her action, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board found this issue to be without merit. The applicant had counsel prior to, during and after her Administrative Discharge Board and she signed a statement saying she did not object to the Administrative Discharge and accepted the under Honorable conditions (General) characterization. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board found this issue to be without merit. The applicant has several, formal counseling sheets in her record which state the offense committed and required corrective action. Additionally there is a retention warning which identifies her performance deficiencies, corrective actions and assistance available. The applicant failed to adhere to the warnings. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 4, the Board found this issue to be without merit. The applicant committed violations of the UCMJ that are considered serious offenses. Additionally, as stated by the applicant, this was a repeat violation of the UCMJ. There is no requirement for her chain of command to issue a retention warning. Discharge was at the discretion of the commanding officer. A review of all the counseling forms in the applicant’s record shows she was given more than a fair chance to adjust to military life. On 920316 the applicant was notified of the Commanding Officer’s intent to discharge her under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct. Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
 B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation, 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 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may 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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE RM 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00428

    Original file (ND00-00428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The award of an Other Than Honorable Discharge is both warranted and appropriate. The Board found the applicant’s misconduct significant enough to warrant an Other Than Honorable discharge. The applicant’s third issue states: “The incidents were minor and resulted in no prejudice to the government.” The NDRB found that contrary to the applicant’s issue the offenses for which she was separated are considered serious offenses under the UCMJ and would warrant a punitive discharge if tried at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00917

    Original file (ND03-00917.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040401. The Applicant has not submitted any documentation to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00883

    Original file (ND01-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I recommend RMSR (applicant) be discharged from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.... The applicant had four separate NJP convictions for misconduct to include assault, drunk and disorderly, unauthorized absence (31 days UA), willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, failure to obey orders and regulations, incapacitated to assume her duties, false official statement and breaking restriction. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500990

    Original file (ND0500990.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer’s comments: “RMSA J_ (Applicant) is being processed for separation by reasons of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and other designated physical or mental conditions. Based on the circumstances of this case, I concur with the Board’s majority recommendation that RMSA J_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterization of General. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00203

    Original file (ND01-00203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant stating issues dated Dec 1, 2000 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890919 - 891015 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 891016 Date of Discharge: 920916 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 11 01 Inactive: None...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01365

    Original file (ND03-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00188

    Original file (ND04-00188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, also advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington National Capital Region. Chronological Listing of Significant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00418

    Original file (ND99-00418.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01113

    Original file (ND03-01113.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920929: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01232

    Original file (ND99-01232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000713. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not...