Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412
Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00412

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990201, 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 991206. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 4a, Grade, Rank or Rank should read: "MMFN" vice "MM3", Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605” vice “3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.






PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. Discharge based on non-pattern misconduct prior to event leading to discharge conduct was honorable. I was selected as an E-4 to fill an E-6 billet in Reactor Training based on good conduct, integrity and professional knowledge.

2. Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits which have been paid for ($1200) are denied to me based on type of discharge. Benefits are required for me to persue my education as a doctor of pharmacy.

3. Other than honorable Discharge caused me to lost a High paying job for which I was otherwise qualified. pending upgrade of discharge to Honorable conditions I would be allowed to reapply for this position. Potential loss if discharge is not upgraded $27,000 per year. This is the difference between my current $21,000 per year salary and my potential $48,000 per year salaries.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921117 - 930816  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930817               Date of Discharge: 980423

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 08 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: NMF

 Highest Rate: MM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, MUC, NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980313:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121.
         Specification: Larceny of a laptop computer of a value of about $2,198.98.
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $1000, reduced to MMFN.
         CA action 980316: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
        
980323:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980323:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
980401:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments verbatim: Misconduct due to commission of a serious offense warrants separation in this case. MMFN (applicant) has demonstrated his unwillingness to conform to the rules and regulations of military service, and is a negative influence on this command and the naval service as a whole. MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that MMFN (applicant) be separated from the naval service under Other than Honorable Conditions.

980406:  Commander, Carrier Group SIX 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 980423 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 Board found the applicant’s first and third issue not germane to the propriety of the applicant’s discharge. The applicant was found guilty at Captain’s Mast of larceny, a serious offense as defined by the UCMJ. 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 equitable.

Concerning the applicant’s second issue, t he Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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, DC 20374-5023       


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00603

    Original file (ND01-00603.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION There was nothing in the applicant’s 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. Relief denied.There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00067

    Original file (ND03-00067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00067 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021009, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Character Reference ltr from S_ S_, Chief of Police, dtd Aug 28, 2002 Letter from Employer, J_ S_, Service Manager, Railserve Inc.,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01157

    Original file (ND99-01157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01157 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990826, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 980908: COMNAVMEDCEN Portsmouth directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service as Honorable by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and physical readiness test failure.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01218

    Original file (ND02-01218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970716 - 971124 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 971125 Date of Discharge: 011210 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 00 16 Inactive: None PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00245

    Original file (ND00-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981120 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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00084

    Original file (ND03-00084.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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, D, and E).Issue 1. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00437

    Original file (ND03-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980305: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151

    Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00080

    Original file (ND03-00080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Heis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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...