Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00628
Original file (ND99-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EWSR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00628

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990406, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000214. 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).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. Request the OTH discharge upgrade to General. Currently employed at Dept. of Defense- Child Development- I am on Leave without pay due to my husband’s death and having come back to the U.S.A.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Character reference dtd 12 Jan 99
Applicant’s undated letter
US Office of Personnel Management sf 50-B
Civilian Leave and Earnings Stmt dtd 990108

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960620-970507    ELS
Inactive: USNR (DEP)    970602-970616 COG
 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970617               Date of Discharge: 980417

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 82

 Highest Rate: EWSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: None                          behavior: None            OTA: NA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 08

 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 :

980324:          NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: 2 Specs: 1. Unauthorized absence from on or about 0645 4 March 1998 until 0645 12 March 1998. 2. Unauthorized absence from 0845, 12 March 1998 to 1300, 13 March 1998. Violation of UCMJ Article 95: Resisting Arrest. Violation of UCMJ Article 134: Breaking Restriction.
         Award: Forfeiture of $463 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
980408:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980408:          Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

980410:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980413:  CNET 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 980417 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 requested her discharge be upgraded to general but provided no propriety, equity or post service issues for the NDRB to consider. The NDRB found in a documentary review that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.
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. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.



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, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00511

    Original file (ND00-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980504: Chief of Naval Personnel to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) recommending applicant's discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980619 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents,...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01008

    Original file (ND04-01008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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 service records by writing to:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00803

    Original file (ND02-00803.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00803 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020513, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01425

    Original file (ND03-01425.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “My Name is T_ C_ (Applicant). At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00039

    Original file (ND01-00039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001017, 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 (D and E).The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 1: (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00826

    Original file (ND00-00826.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Record of Military Processing Form (2pgs) Copy of High School Record Copy of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record Letters from Attorney at Law (3) Copy of DD From 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 980031 - 980408 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00571

    Original file (ND01-00571.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010928. 980501: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 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.

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00802

    Original file (ND01-00802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980402: Civil Conviction: General District Court, Traffic Division, Virginia Beach, VA for violation of driving under the influence (3 rd offense) and refusal to permit a sample of blood or breath to be taken to determine drug/alcohol content on 17Aug97.Sentence: Not listed. Therefore, I concur with the Administrative Board's recommendation that BM2 (applicant) be separated in absentia from the Navy with an Other Than Honorable...