Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00354
Original file (ND99-00354.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00354

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990113 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 a 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, 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The undesirable discharge I received is undesired because I was offered a choice to be Court Martialed Out of fear I chose to be discharged, not knowing what would happen at court.

2. My financial indebtedness was not all my fault. I was on a cruise where as I was suppose to go to court. I brought this to the attention of my chain of command. My indebtedness lead to my being discouraged and unmotivated. Item 5 & 6.

3. I had prior problem before join service. (focused in service record) I was already emotionally unstable. Required 2 waivers to join the navy. (1 for psychotic case)

4. My discharge was based on several events that took place at one period of time. I feel I’ve suffered enough behind my discharge, now it’s time for an upgrade so I can go on living my life.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Applicant’s letter dated 981130
Copies of Applicant’s service record (previously held by the NDRB)
Copy of letter and enclosure to the applicant from GEICO Insurance dated 940614
Copy of GED and associated scores





PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
                  Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921125 - 930104  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930105               Date of Discharge: 950714

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 09
         Inactive: 00 01 09

 Age at Entry: 18                 Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: GED AFQT: 55

 Highest Rate: SHSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 3.50 (2)                OTA: 3.40

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SWASM, SSDR, BE

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 11

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950312:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency, passed out from over consumption of alcohol on board liberty launch, notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  

950519:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (absent from place of duty); violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey order (written); UCMJ Article 134: Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Consuming alcohol underage; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Disorderly conduct, drunkenness.
         Award: Forfeiture of $478 per month for 2 months, 60 days restriction and 45 days extra duty, reduction to SHSA. No indication of appeal in the record.
950522:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
950522:          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. Additionally, applicant did not object to separation.

950528:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

950711:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 950714 under other than honorable conditions for 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 states that he chose discharge out of fear- not knowing what would happen in court- rather than court martialed for the commission of a serious offense. The maximum punishment from court martial for the offense of Article 87 Missing Movement is Dishonorable Discharge, two years confinement, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances. There is no documentary evidence of coercion by the parent command or of appeal by the applicant. The NDRB finds no irregularity in the applicant’s NJP proceedings. Relief denied.

The applicant’s assertions regarding financial indebtedness are irrelevant. The applicant was processed for commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his NJP on 950519 for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (absent from place of duty); violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey order (written); UCMJ Article 134: Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Consuming alcohol underage; and violation of UCMJ Article 134: Disorderly conduct, drunkenness. The NDRB finds this assertion without merit. Relief denied.

The applicant states that he was unfit for duty due to a preexisting condition and was emotionally unstable. The NDRB found this issue without merit as the applicant was designated qualified for service on 921125 by competent medical authority. Relief denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue implies that the type and characterization of discharge should be changed due to the passage of time. The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01422

    Original file (ND04-01422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 950923: Applicant returned to military control on 0600, 950923 by Navy Deserter Information Point, Washington, DC.951018: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Relief denied.The Applicant contends that because he was discharged prior to receiving treatment for drug or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00057

    Original file (ND04-00057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I strongly recommend GSMFA W (Applicant) receive an other than honorable discharge from the naval service.950905: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than 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 19950911...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01239

    Original file (ND99-01239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    830820: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from NTC, Great Lakes, IL commencing on/or about 0545, 820913 and termination on/or about 0830, 820922 and Unauthorized absence from USS CHARLESTON (LKA-113), located at Norfolk, VA commencing on/or about 830307 and termination on/or about 830423), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00920

    Original file (ND99-00920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00920 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990630, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.940324: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.940325: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00153

    Original file (ND00-00153.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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00051

    Original file (ND02-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.900802: Retention Warning from USS SEATTLE (AOE-3): Advised of deficiency (Misconduct due to violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit for 12 days and violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement. No indication of appeal in the record.920723: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP dated 18Jun92 due to continued misconduct.920723: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 13Jul92 to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01017

    Original file (ND01-01017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge is, I must say that I am pleased with the discharge I have now, during the time that I was in the Navy I had gotten in pregnant and stayed away from my command for a short time. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Adverse Performance Evaluation Report Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Copies of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (4pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01153

    Original file (ND99-01153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950714: Summary Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully possessing weapons on board NAS Cecil Field without proper authority, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Violate a lawful order by having a female guest in the barracks after hours, violation of UCMJ Article 109: Without proper authority, willfully damage, by writing on it, one photograph of AA M____ A____. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01367

    Original file (ND03-01367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930203: 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 your service record.930205: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00405

    Original file (ND04-00405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00405 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040115. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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: