Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00007
Original file (ND99-00007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00007

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981001, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990913. 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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I was not convicted of any felony, only of bounce checks due to poor management of money. I am a Nurse Aide with a CPR License. I am trying to become a Phila Policemen please consider.

 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 discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     841226 - 850219  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 850220               Date of Discharge: 870507

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 02 18
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 30

 Highest Rate: HA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.76 (5)    Behavior: 2.80 (5)                OTA: 2.88

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 5

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

860227:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from his unit at 1400, 860214.
Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 15 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
860228:  Retention Warning from Naval Hospital, Pensacola, Florida: Advised of deficiency (violation of UCMJ, Article 86), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

860422:  Reduction in rate suspended at NJP on 860227 vacated due to continued misconduct.

860424:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: failed to obey a lawful order.
         Award: Extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
860711:  Retention Warning from Naval Hospital, Pensacola, Florida: Advised of deficiency (violation of UCMJ, Article 92), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
860717:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs), Spec 1: Absent from unit 0630, 860712 until 0654, 860712, Spec 2: Absent from unit 0630, 860713 until 0725, 860713; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Uttered worthless checks (3) to NAVEX.
         Award: Restriction to NAS Pensacola Barracks. No indication of appeal in the record.

870718:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital,Pensacola notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO's NJP.
860718:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
860723:  Applicant waived administrative board.
860903:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense.

860925:  CNMPC disapproved discharge general under honorable conditions discharge.
861103:  Civil conviction at County Court for ten counts of worthless check.
 Sent: Fined $25.00 cost of supervision and $25.00 per check, total amount $400.00, 6 months probation and to make restitution.

 870402:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from his unit 2359, 870324 until 0615, 870329 (5days/S).
         Award: Restriction to Naval Hospital Pensacola for 45 days and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
870401:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital,Pensacola notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction as evidenced by CO's NJP and civilian conviction by County Court..
870406:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected 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 and to submit a statement on own behalf either verbally or in writing before an Administrative Board or in writing if an Administrative Board is not convened.
870422:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and civilian conviction. Commanding officer’s comments: (verbatim), HR Hunter has demonstrated a complete disregard for authority as evidenced by the charges brought before both Commanding Officers NJP and County Court. He has no potential for further useful naval service. His conduct has had an adverse effect on good order and discipline within this command. It is recommended that HR Hunter be discharged from the United States Navy with an other than honorable discharge for misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and civilian conviction.


870505:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 870507 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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 (C and D).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The applicant had numerous Captain’s Mast cases involving checks being cashed with insufficient funds in the bank to cover them. This is a violation of the UCMJ and constitutes a serious offense that could result in a Bad Conduct Discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214, Block 26, Separation Code, indicates he was separated for misconduct based on a pattern of misconduct arising from multiple Captain’s Mast cases, including the commission of a serious offense, and a civilian conviction. No other characterization could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To upgrade the discharge would be inappropriate.

The fact this crime is not a felony does not change the characterization of discharge. The term "serious offense" should not be confused with what is considered serious in the civilian world. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) categorizes a wide range of offenses: disrespectful language, failure to obey a lawful order or written regulation, such as not maintaining hair within standards, drunken driving, forgery, missing ship's movement, unauthorized absence for 30 days or more, making false official statements, and so forth, right up to the most "serious" crimes of spying, aiding the enemy in time of war, mutiny, rape and murder. Although all of these offenses come under the broad UCMJ category of "serious offenses," some are clearly more heinous than others. A person in the military must abide by the standards as set forth in the UCMJ, regardless of what guidelines his civilian counterparts might utilize. Accordingly, the Board cannot justify changing the applicant’s discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 7/86, effective 15 Dec 86 until 14 Jun 87), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00068

    Original file (ND01-00068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from applicant dated October 2, 2000 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880506 - 880925 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880926 Date of Discharge: 910702 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 09 07 Inactive: None Age at Entry:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01111

    Original file (ND01-01111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 830817: Reenlisted onboard USS LEXINGTON AVT-16 for 6 years.850319: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA on or about 0700, 850304, until 1400, 850305, a period of about 2 1/2 days. Sentence: Confinement for 1 month, forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 3 months, reduction to E-3. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00059

    Original file (ND01-00059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Assessment: ETOH Plan: Return to counseling for re-evaluation 8 hrs.850304: Sick Call: Pt is a 20 year old white male complaint of alcohol ingestion. No indication of appeal in the record.860308: CO, USS HECTOR advised CNMPC that applicant received another NJP and the recommendation for discharge due to misconduct due to Commission of serious offense submitted on 28 Feb 86 is appropriate and that the discharge package be corrected as such and correct the date in the LON, para 7 to show...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00802

    Original file (ND99-00802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00802 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990524, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 35 Highest Rate: HN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.73 (3) Behavior: 2.60 (3) OTA: 3.33 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00314

    Original file (ND00-00314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.990114: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by two Commanding Officer's NJPs of 981119...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00430

    Original file (ND99-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00430 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. SA B____ is an administrative burden to the Navy and should be expeditiously discharged.920811: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00063

    Original file (ND01-00063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. "990506: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00107

    Original file (ND00-00107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00107 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991027, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I have also had numerous treatments for alcoholism, in the service and since being separated. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Illinois Treatment Verification Applicant's...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01010

    Original file (ND99-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I (applicant) have serviced two tours in the U.S. Navy. So I failed the test, but time the test caught up with me, I was half way though deployment and time I got discharge, I was one month short of my tour. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00011

    Original file (ND01-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It doesn't get you nowhere.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. Regret and remorse alone are no basis upon which the Board can grant relief.