Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00458
Original file (ND99-00458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFN, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00458

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990212, 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 991213. 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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The reason I was asleep on watch was, Prior to going on that watch I had just gotten of a six hour watch with only 2 hours sleep. I reported it to my supervisor, but he made me stand the watch. Thank you for your consideration.

 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)     940107 - 940828  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940829               Date of Discharge: 970827

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: MM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

 Military Decorations: None

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

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961024:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully derelict in the performance of duties by sleeping in the #1 main machinery room while standing the shaft alley patrol watch.
         Award: Forfeiture of $250 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to E-2. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
961024:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officer's Nonjudicial punishment of 24 October 1996 for willfully derelict in the performance on your duties by sleeping in the #1 main machinery room while standing the shaft alley patrol watch.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970804:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully derelict in the performance of duties by sleeping in #2C shaft alley while standing sea and anchor detail on 97Jul01.
         Award: Forfeiture of $553 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
970804:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO's NJP 24Oct96 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (willful dereliction in the performance of your duties by sleeping in the #1 main machinery room while standing the staff alley patrol watch) and 4Aug97 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (willful dereliction in the performance of your duties by sleeping in #2C shaft alley while standing sea and anchor detail).
970809:          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

970818:  Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Comments of the CO : ”MMFN ___ conduct is incompatible with naval service. I have determined that the applicant has no potential for future service and should be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge by reasons of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.” Applicant discharged on Aug 27, 1997.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970827 general (under 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 beliefs that his discharge was for one violation of following asleep on watch. The applicant is in error. The Board found that the applicant had 2 NJP’s for violation of Article 92, UCMJ, sleeping on duty, not one. The applicant received a retention warning after the first NJP, but violated the same article a second time. The discharge is based on the applicant’s conduct during his entire enlistment. Both of these offenses were considered at the time the discharge was issued. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). 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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00081

    Original file (ND02-00081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00081 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011011, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 920207: USS CONSTELLATION (CV-64) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01194

    Original file (ND99-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION To say I had a pattern of misconduct is over emphasizing my conduct which actually I had only one offense that was correct and that was in 1988 some two years prior to my discharge. 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’s issue 1 is a non-decisional issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00544

    Original file (ND99-00544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MMFN, USN Docket No. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000110. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 940315 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

    Original file (ND1200804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600090

    Original file (ND0600090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    J_ R_ K_(Applicant) ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00133

    Original file (ND00-00133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I only ask that my discharge be upgraded to an "honorable" status. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :821012: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.830818: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty, 0545-0600, 25Jul83. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 851031 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500927

    Original file (ND0500927.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960201: Punishment of RIR to AOAA, forfeit $213 pay per month for 1 month, and 7 days extra duty suspended at CO’s NJP of 951116 vacated this date due to continued misconduct.Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officer’s non-judicial punishment of 960201 for unauthorized absence from 0600, 951202 to 1200, 951202; and for unauthorized absence from 0600, 960113 to 1010, 969113), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004

    Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01004 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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’s two issues requested an upgrade based on his post service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00543

    Original file (ND04-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Within 3-days he realized that he was having the same problem as I had and changed the watch schedule so that he had a day watch and could get more sleep.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00154

    Original file (ND04-00154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00154 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031104. I did not have duty the following day. Should your misconduct continue you will create an adverse pattern of misconduct which cannot be tolerated), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.880107: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drinking an alcoholic beverage while under the legal age.Award: 30...