Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00108
Original file (ND99-00108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SHSR, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00108

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981022, 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 representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991004. After a thorough review of the records, 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

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.


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: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880518               Date of Discharge: 891107

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 20
         Inactive: 00 00 02

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 78

 Highest Rate: SHSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.10 (2)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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 :

880518:  Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

890209:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobedience of a superior commissioned officer.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

890302:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobedience of a superior commissioned officer.
         Award: Correctional custody for 30 days.
890810:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobedience of a superior commissioned officer; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
         Award: Forfeiture of $349 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

890814:  Retention Warning from Commanding Officer USS BUTTE (AE-27) Advised of deficiency (Article 90 and Article 92) notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.   

891011:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 21 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
891013:  Commanding Officer USS BUTTE (AE-27) 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 non-judicial punishments on 891011, 890810, 890302, and 890209.

891013:          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.

891015:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "SHSR (applicant) has been counseled numerous times by his LPO and his division officer regarding his lack of motivation and responsibility. He requires constant supervision. SNM is a negative influence on members of my command. He received a page 13 warning on 11 Aug 89, and his behavior and attitude have remained unchanged. Recommend admin separation under other than honorable conditions".

891020:  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 891107 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.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00830

    Original file (ND00-00830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 820402 - 870706 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 811216 - 820401 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870707 Date of Discharge: 900323 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 08 17 Inactive: None PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01075

    Original file (ND99-01075.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.891007: Vacate suspended reduction to SA awarded at CO's NJP of 30Aug89 due to continued misconduct.891007: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in language to a superior petty officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order from a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00008

    Original file (ND00-00008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 42 Highest Rate: SHSN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 1.95 (4) Behavior: 2.10 (4) OTA : 2.30 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR Days of Unauthorized Absence: 35 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00316

    Original file (ND04-00316.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00316 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government reenlistment code to RE1. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00495

    Original file (ND02-00495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 presented no issues, however, he did request an upgrade of his discharge to general (under honorable conditions.) The Applicant The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented in the service record.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00690

    Original file (ND03-00690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.940902: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO’s NJP dated 940614 due to continued misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01042

    Original file (ND02-01042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    he Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls far short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00485

    Original file (ND99-00485.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 900724: Vacate forfeiture and reduction awarded at CO's NJP dated 8Mar90 due to continued misconduct. 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 but inequitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board after reviewing the applicant’s post-service conduct, grants clemency relief as authorized under provisions of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01104

    Original file (ND99-01104.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 Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000420. The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2: (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to...