Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00098
Original file (ND99-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GSEFA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00098

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list any person or organization as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 990927. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

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

1. “I, (Applicant) would like to get an upgrade of my discharge due to receiving the Montgomery G. I. Bill to complete my education at DeVry Institute of Technology.”

2. “I’d like the board to review my case, and let me receive some V.A. Benefits, which I need to continue my career in electronics.”

3. There is an error on my last DDS, which I obtain (SIC) while on active duty. It says I have a negative leave balance –42. I’ve never took over 15 days of leave.”

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

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950519 - 951112  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 9511013      Date of Discharge: 971030

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 11 14
         Inactive: 00 05 24

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: GSEFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.5 (2)     Behavior: 2.0 (2)        OTA: No Overall assigned (5.0 eval)
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 4

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970826:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700 970818 – 1600 970821. Violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing movement 970818.
         Award: Forfeiture of $500 per month for 1 month, restriction to the limits of USS The SULLIVANS (DDG 68) and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

971015:  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 two page 13 administrative warnings and non-judicial punishment on 970826.
971015:          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.
971021:  Commanding officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments: “Despite being a bright young man, FN B__ has not demonstrated the maturity or self-discipline to continue as a crewman in this ship or as a sailor in the Navy. Despite over a dozen informal counseling sessions, two page 13 administrative warnings and a captain’s mast, and despite his personal commitment to me to do so, he has not changed. FN B__ continues to be difficult to work with, is openly belligerent with superiors, can not complete even the most basic tasks, and absolutely refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Just before sailing to Maine for post-shakedown availability, he was an unauthorized absentee and missed ships movement through his own negligence and without regret. He firmly believes he can get away with continued poor performance and will not be held accountable. I recommend FN B__ be immediately administratively separated with a general discharge.”

971028:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971030 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 desires to upgrade his discharge in order to obtain Montgomery GI Bill benefits to continue his studies in the electronics field. He also cited an error (negative leave balance) on his last Leave and Earnings statement.

The Board found none of these issues to be decisional issues. Accordingly, no relief is granted. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will upgrade a discharge if such a change is warranted. Applicant’s issues did not raise any improprieties or inequities.

Further, a pplicant was briefed on the requirements for obtaining Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits in 1995. Specifically, the applicant signed an acknowledgement statement that an honorable discharge after completion of 36 months of active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill. If the applicant’s discharge were upgraded to an Honorable discharge, the applicant would still not be eligible for educational benefits because his total length of service is about 13 months short of the 36 month requirement.

The Board cannot address purported errors in applicant’s last Leave and Earnings statement.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 14 Mar 98, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00118

    Original file (ND01-00118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00118 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001101, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00273

    Original file (ND03-00273.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00273 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021205, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. CA action 010730: Sentence approved and ordered executed.010724: Applicant to confinement. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00719

    Original file (ND00-00719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During XOI, Capt V_____ told me that they would do everything possible to ensure my benefits, specifically the G.I. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 941221 - 950711 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950712 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00017

    Original file (ND01-00017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.961109: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Drug paraphernalia possession, October 19, 1996, less than monthly, shipboard. 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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board finds that the applicant was very fortunate indeed to receive an honorable discharge and could not determine any...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00765

    Original file (ND99-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000417. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980206 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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).Regarding the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00074

    Original file (ND99-00074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I hope you will take my application into serious consideration and thank you greatly for your time. 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: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930730 - 940724 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940725 Date of Discharge: 971010 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00755

    Original file (ND99-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00755 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990310, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that t Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A.Naval Military...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00284

    Original file (ND00-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bill, the applicant would need not only an Honorable discharge but also 36 months of active service to receive benefits. The applicant is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00647

    Original file (ND00-00647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00647 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000425, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. In response to the applicant’s issue 2, the Board At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.