Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00514
Original file (ND99-00514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RPSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00514

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990302, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review. The applicant listed the Jewish War Veterans organization as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

The applicant failed to appear for his personal appearance hearing on 991208. With new supporting documentation and issues, a second documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991208 based on the Board’s own motion. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned impropriety and inequity in the characterization and reason for the applicant’s discharge. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason for the discharge shall change. The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/Secretarial Plenary Authority, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630900.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Service in the Armed Forces of the United States was always a high priority for me. From Sunday School to Boy Scouts and R.O.T.C., service above self is important to me and as a second generation US Navy sailor, it was especially important to me to serve with honor the U.S. Navy. I was ordered to MCAS Beaufort, S.C. because of my 100% test scores and # one class ranking. After reporting to Beaufort I scored the highest grade possible to make petty Officer but while working as a Religious program Specialist Seaman I was never allowed the promotion. The following two years were marked by a Commander (F.R.) Chaplain who made the work place hostile with anti-Semitic racial, sexist and sexual remarks, his alcohol abuse and stored pornography and another chaplain who now is at Ft Leavenworth for indecency with children made the Air Station Chapel an impossible place to cope. Through my tenure I received no proper training or counseling and after years of being setup on false charges of Captain's Mast and nonjudicial punishment, after Operation Desert Shield/Storm I was coerced into accepting a general discharge. During the past 8 years I have proven myself to be a contributing and productive citizen. I respectfully request that my discharge be upgraded. Now with a wife and child it is my aim to use the GI Bill I earned to further my education. I have served my state, community and country in the National Guard of Texas and am determined to have my naval record now vindicated and corrected.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Applicant's resume
Applicant's Army National Guard Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 25 Nov 97
13 Character Reference letters
Applicant's Air Force Certificate of Training dated 20 Oct 98

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     881130 - 881226  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881227               Date of Discharge: 910419

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: RPSN (E-3)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.70 (6)    Behavior: 3.20 (6)                OTA: 2.57

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Unsatisfactory Performance - failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630300.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890518:  Applicant dropped from PH "A" school due to lack of manual dexterity and assigned to RP "A" school.

891130:  Recommendation for advancement to E-4 withdrawn due to lack of rating knowledge and inability to perform in capacity of petty officer.

891130:  Applicant acknowledged receipt of 2.6 mark in military knowledge/performance, initiative and reliability and 1.0 mark in rate knowledge/performance. Applicant did not elect to make a statement.
900313:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: failure to obey order or regulation.
         Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

901024:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (NJP on 13 Mar 90 for failure to obey order or regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910312:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance as evidenced by enlisted performance evaluation reports for the periods 890906 to 891130; 900201 to 900228, and 900201 to 910121.
910312:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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 and the right to submit statements. Applicant did not object to the separation.
910322:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "SN (Applicant) has been counseled several times by his officer-in-charge and has failed to conform to military standards. I recommend separation from the Naval Service as expeditiously as possible.

910410:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to unsatisfactory performance.

 940107:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND93-00087 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910419 under honorable conditions (general) for unsatisfactory performance (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 improper and inequitable (C and D).

The Board is under no obligation to have an additional documentary review when an applicant fails to appear for their personal appearance. Based on its own motion, and with new found information, the Board reconvened and voted unanimously to upgrade the discharge to HONORABLE.

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found the applicant’s discharge of Unsatisfactory Performance was based on a page 13 counseling/discharge warning and a series of six evaluations with unsatisfactory marks. Four of the six evaluations were special evals, with only three month, two month and one month time periods. The Board found that the combination of poor evaluations and the one page 13 counseling did not offer the applicant, an E-3 a reasonable opportunity to undertake the recommended action.

In addition, the Board found that the hostile work environment contributed to the applicant’s problems and the lack of leadership and proper training brought question to the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A) effective 15 Jun 87 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630300, SEPARATION CF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE .

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00833

    Original file (ND02-00833.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 (2 copies) Unofficial transcript PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 951128 - 951213 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951214 Date of Discharge: 971008 Length of Service (years, months, days): Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00492

    Original file (ND02-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00492 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I am requesting my discharge changed to honorable, because I did serve honorably during my time. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990602: NAVPERS 1070/613: Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance and failure to respond within 30 days of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00738

    Original file (ND00-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason shall change to: Secretarial Authority.The applicant’s first issue states: “Over 95% of my service record is honorable and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I received an Honorable discharge and a good conduct medal from my previous command after 4 years of service.” As every enlistment results in a discharge for that period alone, the NDRB found the applicant’s low overall performance, 1.56, and misconduct, violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 107, in his last enlistment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01249

    Original file (ND02-01249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01249 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A record discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031017. Pt did indicate an understanding of same.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00146

    Original file (ND03-00146.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00146 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021030. The Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that he requested to return to the IRR status, therefore continuing this drill status, he incurred an obligation to drill with his reserve unit until 19951219. While the Applicant may believe that he was not required to attend scheduled drills and that he was not properly notified of his pending administrative separation, the record is devoid of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00301

    Original file (ND00-00301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 75 Highest Rate: AZ3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.30 (6) Behavior: 2.40 (7) OTA: 3.08 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01052

    Original file (ND00-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A). 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212

    Original file (ND99-01212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212 (4)

    Original file (ND99-01212 (4).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01062

    Original file (MD03-01062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. (SEE ENCLOSED MEPS PHYSICAL) I enlisted in good faith to serve my country proud.I was discharged for a Medical Condition Not for for Entry Level Performance and Conduct, As you know my medical condition was the reason I could not perform Physical Training as required by Military Basic Training Regulations. 020906: Medical Disposition Officer: Applicant qualified for...