Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00629
Original file (ND99-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00629

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990406, 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 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Issue 1- applicant’s letter: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

I have a general discharge under other than honorable conditions. I am wanting to upgrade it to a general under honorable or just a general if possible. I realize you will have to review my military records and make your judgement based on it. The reason I have for leaving without permission and missing ships movement, was my wife had just had a baby, I was approved for 14 days leave. I was only able to get 3 days because I had to return to the sub. For Sea trials. I know it was wrong of me to do this. I just couldn’t bear to leave them for a three month deployment. Going threw my chain of command did not do any good, there fore I took matters into my own over missing ships movement. I was given the choice to go in front of the review board or a court martial. I waived my right to go in front of the review board. If there would have been a chance for me to go back to a surface ship, I would not have waived my rights. I was informed that I would have to return to the sub. That is why I chose the court martial. I have no bad feelings for the Navy, other than them not being family oriented. The first year my wife and I were married, she went through a very difficult miscarrage and when I tried to get leave then, they told me in a round about way to screw your family. When I left without leave in 1986, my wife had just had our son and I was concerned for her well being. She had a very difficult delivery. After her miscarriage in 1985, the doctors told us that she would not be able to carry a child to full term do to her size. She was supposed to have a C section, but the doctors had her go threw normal child birth. She has a heart murmer and I was concerned about leaving her for three months without any family around to be with her. I would like for you to consider this letter when you make your decision.

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):
                  Inactive: USNR (DEP)     840217 - 840318  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 840319               Date of Discharge: 870102

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12(GED)                           AFQT: 74

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.7 (2)     Behavior: 3.60 (3)                OTA: 3.70

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSBN Deterrent Patrol Insignia

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 27

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

860623:  Applicant on unauthorized absence from 0715, 23 June 1986.

860717:  Applicant surrendered at COMSUBROM 18 at 1030.

860912:  Special Court Martial. Violation of UCMJ Article 86. Unauthorized Absence from Unit from 0715, 23 Jun 86 until 17 Jul 86.
         Violation of UCMJ Article 87. Missing Ship’s Movement by Neglect.
         Sentence adjudged: Confinement Hard Labor 3 Months; Forfeit $200 pay per month for 5 Months; Reduction to E-2.

861008:  COMSUBRON 18 Convening Authority’s Action: Sentence Approved and will be executed.      

860929:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
860929:          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.
861024:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

861204:  CNP recommended to the Secretary of the Navy the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense

861212:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy directs separation of applicant with Other Than Honorable Discharge due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 870102 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’s issue is a personal letter that discussed the circumstances surrounding his Unauthorized Absence and Missing Ship’s Movement. The applicant provided no documentary evidence to support his issue. Additionally, the applicant provided no post service information for the NDRB to consider. The NDRB found the discharge to be proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.

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 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 | ND99-01239

    Original file (ND99-01239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    830820: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from NTC, Great Lakes, IL commencing on/or about 0545, 820913 and termination on/or about 0830, 820922 and Unauthorized absence from USS CHARLESTON (LKA-113), located at Norfolk, VA commencing on/or about 830307 and termination on/or about 830423), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00625

    Original file (ND00-00625.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00625 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000417, 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. The applicant must petition the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to change her reenlistment code issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00323

    Original file (ND00-00323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00323 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000112, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01238

    Original file (ND99-01238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I also submit to you another issue, that at the time all this was going on with my grandfather dying I was going through a divorce an was stressed when I was out at sea. I am asking that I be considered for a general discharge for reasons being that I have served in the navy honorably for 2 years and 9 months without prior non-judicial punishment. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00673

    Original file (ND99-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990416, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. 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) 891220 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01167

    Original file (ND03-01167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910812 - 920209 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920110 Date of Discharge: 930615 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 01 05 Inactive: None CA action 930419: Sentence approved and ordered...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00163

    Original file (ND02-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It clearly does not reflect my naval record and honor before the incident. 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: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940214 - 940412 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940413 Date of Discharge: 960313 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00649

    Original file (ND04-00649.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :950614: Applicant went on Unauthorized Absence from USS DWIGHT D EISENHOWER at 0001, 950613. The Board found that the Applicant’s enlisted performance and conduct prior to her NJP and her submission of post service documentation, persuaded the Board that the characterization of service was inequitable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00085

    Original file (ND01-00085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking today that the NAVY COUNCIL OF PERSONNEL BOARDS to review my application to appeal my discharge. Sincerely, 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) 910716 - 920217 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920218 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00328

    Original file (ND00-00328.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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).In the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board determined these issues are without merit. The applicant remains eligible...