Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00635
Original file (ND99-00635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ABEAN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00635

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990409, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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/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.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Undated Letter of Reference from E_ R_ G_, Jr.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     891215 - 900917  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900918               Date of Discharge: 921229

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: ABE3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.95 (4)    Behavior: 2.95 (4)                OTA : 3.2

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SWASM, SSDR, JMUA, Flag Letter Commendation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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 :

921211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: disobey a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer on 11DEC92, violation of UCMJ Article 112a: wrongful use of marijuana from 14NOV92 thru 24NOV92.
         Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days, forfeiture of $482 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

921211:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse. [EXTRACTED FROM CO, USS FORRESTAL MSG 211759Z DEC 97.]
921211:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. Applicant did not object to the separation. [EXTRACTED FROM CO, USS FORRESTAL MSG 211759Z DEC 97.]

921221:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "I strongly recommend that SNM be separated from the naval service under other than honorable conditions."

921228:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

921229:  Applicant was offered but declined treatment for Alcohol/Drug dependency.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 921229 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00430

    Original file (ND00-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION This was unjust & unfair that only two people went to Captains Mast instead of everyone you bought a meter but didn't admit to paying for it I record was flawless until the USS FORRESTAL.” The NDRB considered this issue and found that it was one of three NJP’s the applicant was found guilty for in his enlistment. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00849

    Original file (ND99-00849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930202: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drinking on restriction on 1Feb93. No indication of appeal in the record.930202: USS WICHITA (AOR-11) 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 NJP's of 23Oc91, 13Nov91, 11Sep92, 28Dec92 and 2Feb93 and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by wrongful use...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01084

    Original file (MD99-01084.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000512. 920612: Summary Court-Martial Charge I: violation of UCMJ Article 86: about 24MAR92, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and did remain so absent until on or about 26MAR92 (2 days). 920921: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence 0730, 09SEP92 - 10SEP92.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00120

    Original file (ND04-00120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00120 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031023. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At the time of my Captains Mast hearing I was going to receive 45/45 45 days in jail and 45 days no pay.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00437

    Original file (ND99-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960816: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct based on two NJP's in your current enlistment and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense by violation of UCMJ Articles 92 and 91.960816: Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00976

    Original file (ND01-00976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. 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: USN 880614 - 900408 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880608 - 880613 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01049

    Original file (ND99-01049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01049 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to anything but what it is. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00405

    Original file (ND99-00405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900612: CNMPC 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 900615 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00145

    Original file (ND01-00145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    921215: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved discharge other than honorable conditions. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00186

    Original file (ND00-00186.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890624: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 890621 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Drug abuse (Use) (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...