Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00709
Original file (ND99-00709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00709

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990430 requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the traveling panel closest to Houston, TX. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

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 - Pattern of Misconduct, 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:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880809 - 881102  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881103               Date of Discharge: 920424

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11 GED           AFQT: 55

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.13 (6)    Behavior: 3.17 (6)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 71

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900209:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Unauthorized absence from 891205 to 891206 and 0700, 891211 to 1600, 900107 (27 days/surrendered).
         Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. Forfeiture suspended for 3 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
900209:  Retention Warning from USS CORAL SEA (CV 43): Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absences.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900905:  Applicant declared a deserter. Unauthorized absence since 900804.

 901015:  Applicant surrendered from unauthorized absence 1135, 901015.

901214:  Summary Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Unauthorized absence 900804 – 900910, [38 days/surrendered].
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87.
         Specification: Missing ship's movement on 900806.
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 15 days, restriction for 15 days, reduction to AR.
         CA 901231: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

910208:  Retention Warning from USS INCHON (LPH 12): Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence and missing ship's movement.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910606:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Unauthorized absence 910502 - 910504, and 910517 - 910520, violation of UCMJ Article 91 (2 specs): Insubordinate conduct towards a superior petty officer.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

911018:  Retention Warning from Training Squadron Twenty-four, NAS Chase Field: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absences and insubordinate conduct.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920116:  Civil Conviction: Beeville Municipal Court for violation of possession of intoxicants on public school grounds on 16 January 1992.
 Sentence: Fine $129.00.
920220:  Applicant diagnosed as alcohol dependent

920303:  Training Squadron Twenty-Four (VT-24), Chase Field Naval Air Station, Beeville, TX notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a civil conviction, commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.
920305:          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.
920316:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a civil conviction, commission of a serious offense, and pattern of misconduct.

920328:  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 920424 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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.

 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 – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days] if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND99-00050

    Original file (ND99-00050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    TMSN (applicant) was well aware of the Navy's policy concerning drug abuse at the time of is drug involvement and does not possess the potential for further useful naval service. Therefore, I most strongly recommend that he be discharged from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge due to misconduct as evidenced by drug abuse and pattern of misconduct.920602: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00127

    Original file (ND99-00127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. No indication of appeal in the record.830721: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Disobeying a lawful order on 30Jun83 and 1Jul83 Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to ENFA. 850525: Applicant to unauthorized absence, 1430, 85May25.850529: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2230, 86May29...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00260

    Original file (ND99-00260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any appearance hearing. ]900611: USS STEPHEN W. GROVES (FFG 29) 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 26 Aug 89 award of CO’s NJP for violation of Article 86 (2 specs), Unauthorized absence (1 days, 22 hours,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00982

    Original file (ND02-00982.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870114 Date of Discharge: 881208 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 02 25 Inactive: 00 07 29 The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00523

    Original file (ND01-00523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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) 910410 - 910506 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910507 Date of Discharge: 931115 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 06...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00491

    Original file (ND01-00491.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board will not grant relief on the basis of these issues.In response to applicant’s issues 9 and 12-15, the Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant's chain of command. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). At...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01046

    Original file (ND99-01046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Discharged in absentia, 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 (D and E).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, there is no law or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00503

    Original file (ND04-00503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D_ N_ (Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880725 Date of Discharge: 900424 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 01 08 29 Inactive: 00 04 22 Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 8...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01133

    Original file (ND99-01133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01133 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990824, 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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01008

    Original file (ND99-01008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 attached letter, the Board sited the following issues: Youth and immaturity, post-service achievements (hard working family man), and difficulty explaining discharge characterization to potential employers. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the...