Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00621
Original file (ND99-00621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STGSA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00621

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990402, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000110. 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/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read: “02 08 10” vice “03 08 10”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
Issue 1 - I entered the Navy immediately after high school. I thought that it would be a chance for me to mature, that the military would help develop me into a responsible man. Until I entered the military, I had never been away from family influences and had never been totally on my own. I always had parental guidance in all of my decision making processes. Unfortunately, I did not make very good decisions in a lot of the choices I faced. The maturity I thought I would obtain by my military experience never came to fruition. I am a good person but was still immature.

 Issue 2 - "While I was still in the Navy, I got married. Once again, advice I received from family and friends was ignored and I married anyway. Not being very mature mentally, there were problems. This contributed to some of the problems I had while in the Navy. We were married in August; I found out his wife was pregnant in December. In January, my wife left me. At the time I was restricted to the ship and during this time my wife left me a note on the kitchen table and left. This caused a great deal of turmoil in my life and I was unable to cope with the fact that she had left me without any explanation or chance for reconciliation.

 Issue 3 -Since my discharge and divorce, I have gotten on with my life. I have since remarried and gone back to school to try to better myself. Just recently my wife and I have had a baby. I have tried repeatedly to get a decent job but to no avail. I took an EMT course with the intent to work with the fire department and rescue squad but was unsuccessful due to my OTH discharge. When employers see the type of discharge I received from the Navy, they apologize and end the interviews. I have mostly done odd jobs, cooking in fast food restaurants and pizza delivery places, door to door salesman and now as a waiter at the Waffle House. Although these menial jobs pay a few bills, they do not offer benefits such as health insurance and retirement. With a new baby it is essential that I get a decent job and be not forced to join the ranks of welfare and government assistance.

 Issue 4 - With your help, I could get a better job and provide for my two children and wife like a man should. I am willing and able to do whatever it takes to provide for them but my current discharge is an impediment to my success. Please help keep me and my family off the government dole system. I want to work, I want to better my standing and be a good provider for my family. I have finally made advance in my maturity but still has a little way to go. I have kept my life straight and have stayed out of trouble. My finances are not very good right now, but a change of the discharge from OTH to General would help me tremendously.





 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 to NCPB dated Mar 13, 1999
Applicant's Privacy Act Statement for Senator C_'s office
Applicant's Privacy Act Statement for Congressman C_'s office
Letter of Reference from R_ G. T_, SMSgt, USAF, ret dated 29 Mar 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900803 - 910715  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910716               Date of Discharge: 940325

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 08 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 59

 Highest Rate: STG3 (E-4)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.8 (1)     Behavior: 3.0 (1)                 OTA: 3.2

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930225:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: with intent to deceive, falsified an official statement.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months (suspended pending successful completion of sea bag inspection), reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
930908:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: simple assault.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

930909:  Retention Warning from USS HALYBURTON: Advised of deficiency (misconduct as evidenced by your simple assault.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940217:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: dereliction of duty.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 00 days, vacated suspension of reduction in rate to STGSA (E-2). No indication of appeal in the record.
940225:  CO, USS HALYBURTON notified applicant 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 officer as evidenced by punishment under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.
940228:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
                   Applicant did not object to the separation.

 940301:  Commanding officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

940318:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940325 under other than 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).

Concerning the applicant’s first and second issue, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be accountable for his actions.

Regarding the applicant’s third and fourth issue, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to allow him to obtain better employment. 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. 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 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00014

    Original file (ND99-00014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00014 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 980928, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. This agreement was never kept by Petty Officer P______.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01244

    Original file (ND03-01244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, 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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970722 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01037

    Original file (ND00-01037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. I realize that my record of service in the final year of my enlistment was less than admirable, but in my first year I advanced rapidly and had 3.8 performance evaluations. 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00807

    Original file (ND02-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00807 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.000229: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specification), Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Appeal denied 000313.Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of Article 86: Unauthorized Absence from 0700, 000224 to 1600, 000224; and from 0700,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00849

    Original file (ND00-00849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880229 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’s issue states: “I'm trying to get a upgrade on my discharge, for I can receive a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00196

    Original file (ND01-00196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 961030: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00553

    Original file (ND03-00553.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00553 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20030212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant is not eligible for further review by the Naval Discharge Review Board. Decision A documentary review discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031017.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01254

    Original file (ND04-01254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. he Applicant did not provide 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00507

    Original file (ND01-00507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.000519: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140.Discharge package missing from service record. Accordingly the Board found these issues non decisional and relief is denied.The applicant’s third and fourth issues state: “I was a hard worker and I earned my plane captain qualification before most of the people that were there...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00928

    Original file (ND99-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have that the person or persons reading these reasons understand that at the time that I broke the rules of the U.S. Navy that I was going through a lot of difficult situations. No indication of appeal in the record.910516: Retention Warning from AIRANTISUBRON Three-Two: Advised of deficiency (Article 86 and Article 92. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.