Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00486
Original file (ND99-00486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00486

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990223, 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 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “3630605” vice “3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I would like to volunteer for the naval reserve. To do so I am requesting for an upgrade so I may obtain a good reenlistment code.


 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                        921013 - 960516  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     911024 - 921012  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960517               Date of Discharge: 970620

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51/91

 Highest Rate: AD3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NER (2), GCM, NDSM, AFEM, OSR (3), CGSOS

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 16

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970512:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs).
         Specification 1: Unauthorized absence on 24 March 1997 to 29 April 1997 (13 days).
         Specification 2: Unauthorized absence on 12 May 1997
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87 (2 specs).
         Specification 1: Missing movement on 24 March 1997.
         Specification 2: Missing movement on 25 March 1997.
         Finding: to Charge I and II the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $885.00, confinement for 30 days reduced to ADAA.
         CA action 970512: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
        
970512:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
970512:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
970610:  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): ADAA (applicant) has proven to be unreliable and untrustworthy. He commenced an unauthorized absence status on two occasions and missed two significant movements. ADAA (applicant) has not adapted to the Navy, and he appears unwilling to serve in the U.S. Navy honorably. I recommend that ADAA (applicant) be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable Conditions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970620 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00589

    Original file (ND99-00589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I strongly recommend that Seaman Recruit_____ be separated immediately from the Naval Service under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 applicant’s issues 1-3, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01234

    Original file (ND99-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : Discharge package missing from service record.970214: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 14Feb97. No relief warranted based on this issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00629

    Original file (ND00-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00629 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000418, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 states: “I received a General discharge from the Navy with the reason being a "Commission of Serious Offence". The...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01021

    Original file (ND01-01021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Statement from Navy Exchange Service Command, Virginia Beach, VA PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950331 - 950522 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950523 Date of Discharge: 990517 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00494

    Original file (ND01-00494.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00494 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION On this basis, he petitions the Board’s relief with re characterization of discharge to full honorable and a narrative reason upgrade to convenience of the government.” While the NDRB is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00899

    Original file (ND01-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970313: Applicant to confinement.970411: Applicant from confinement. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Specification: Missed ship's movement on 7Oct96. 971027: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00257

    Original file (ND02-00257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 950824 - 951204 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951205 Date of Discharge: 971104 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 00 Inactive: None 971020: Commanding Officer recommended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00710

    Original file (ND04-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980514: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981001: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981021 Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at Miami, FL.981026: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2315, 981026 (228 days/apprehended).981027: Summary Court-Martial. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not...