Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00739
Original file (ND99-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFA USN
Docket No. ND99-00739

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990505, 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 any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000207. 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 (verbatim)

 1. Discharge was received during a brief period of discontent. I had completed 79% of my enlistment and received overall e4valuations of 3.5 with shipboard evaluations of 3.8 I was advanced to Machinist Mate Third Class in the first increment, proving that I was knowledgeable and capable of completing my assigned duties. These facts fail to show a “Pattern if Misconduct” or “unreliability.”
There is also the issue that recommendations for administrative medical discharge were repeatedly dismissed by both the Commanding Officer and Executive Officer. The psychiatric evaluation indicated a “borderline antisocial personality disorder,” which would seem to foreshadow my behavior.

 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                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870702 - 880202  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880203               Date of Discharge: 910308

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 92

 Highest Rate: MM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.5 (2)     Behavior: 3.5 (2)                 OTA: 3.5

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, CGSOSR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 65

 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 :

881019:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: O/A 88OCT05 failed to complete mandatory hours.
         Award: Reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
900831:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement; violation of UCMJ, Article 123: Forgery; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: False pass offenses.
         Award: Forfeiture of $444 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

900831:  Retention Warning from USS PREBLE (DDG 46): Advised of deficiency (Your conviction of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, Article 123: Forgery, and Article 134: False official pass offenses), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

901002:  Retention Warning from USS PREBLE (DDG 46): Advised of deficiency (Borderline personality disorder manifested by inconsistent performance, argumentative behavior, aggressive behavior and poor impulse control.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

901015:  On unauthorized absence from 1830, 15 October, 1990.

901016:  Missed sailing of USS PREBLE (DDG 46) through design, from Norfolk, Virginia, en route to VACAPES (EMAT). The applicant was informed by his Leading Petty Officer of the time and date of the scheduled movement of the ship 4 days prior to the ship getting underway and of the ship’s destination.

901114:  Applicant declared a deserter, having been an unauthorized absentee since 1830, 15 October, 1990, from USS PREBLE (DDG 46).

901220:  Return from deserter status (UA 65 days). Applicant surrendered to military control at 0700, 20 December, 1990, onboard USS PREBLE (DDG 46).

901224:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $404 per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
901224:  Commanding Officer, USS PREBLE (DDG 46) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense and misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct.
901224:          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.
901227:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense and misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): MMFA G_ has been an extreme administrative and disciplinary burden to this command. He deserted this command and his shipmates during a critical period of pre-deployment work ups, repair, and inspections. Considering the current world situation and the employment schedule of the ship, his premeditated long period of unauthorized absence is unacceptable. He cannot be trusted to perform even the most basic military cuties. He detracts from the ship’s morale and warfighting capability. I strongly urge that MMFA G_ be discharged from the U.S. Navy and that the characterization be under Other Than Honorable conditions.

910111:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct.

910308:  Applicant’s discharge was in absentia. Discharge physical was not conducted, and health/dental care benefits entitlements were not explained.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910308 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims his discharge was received during a brief period of discontent, that he was knowledgeable and capable of completing his assignments and that recommendations for administrative medical discharge were repeatedly dismissed by the Commanding officer and Executive officer. The applicant was discharged for misconduct due to an established and well documented pattern of misconduct. His offenses included forgery, false official pass offenses, false official statements and desertion. There was one psychiatric evaluation, on 10SEP90, which recommended administrative separation and stated the applicant personality disorder was of sufficient severity to interfere with continued military service. This was a recommendation to the parent command and not an order to separate the applicant. It was the command’s discretion to decide if the applicant was to be separated or not. The applicant may have been a capable sailor at one point in his career but his string of offenses were serious in nature and were a display of his total disregard for military discipline. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct, subsequent to leaving military service. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge to determine if proper procedures were followed. This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable . Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general). Those factors include but are not limited to the following: Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate). The applicant did not provided any documentation of good character or conduct, which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge. The applicant is encouraged to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments. Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements . He remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge. Legal representation at the hearing is advisable.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500253

    Original file (ND0500253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Sentence: Forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, reduced to E-1.CA action 030306: Sentence approved and ordered executed.030420: Review of Summary court-martial: SJA recommends approval of charge I and the specification thereunder, disapproval of charge II and the specifications thereunder, but approval of the lesser included offense of missing...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00022

    Original file (ND01-00022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00022 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001010, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 921216 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The applicant’s record shows a considerable pattern of misconduct and disobedience while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01264

    Original file (ND02-01264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930302: USS GOLDSBOROUGH (DDG 20) 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 seven specifications of unauthorized absence, dereliction in the performance of duties, and larceny; and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by dereliction in the performance of duties and larceny.930303: Applicant advised of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500936

    Original file (ND0500936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). No indication of appeal in the record.030122: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.030122: Applicant advised of rights and having...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01255

    Original file (ND02-01255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870529: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specifications) , Specification 1 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0800, 870516, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did remain so absent until on or about 1130, 870516; Specification 2 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0500, 870517, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00665

    Original file (ND00-00665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Forfeiture of $375.90 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.910126: USS MARVIN SHIELDS (FF 1066) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO's NJP's on 12Apr90 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (2 specifications) - UA for 3 hours and 20 minutes; UA...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00406

    Original file (ND00-00406.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    880625: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs): UA from unit; violation of UCMJ Article 92: disobeyed a lawful written order.Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days. MMFR (Applicant)'s defense counsel states in his appeal letter that the senior member was not a line officer; that with the other ships alongside in Bahrain as well as the USS LASALLE, an 0-4 line officer could have been obtained. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01027

    Original file (ND02-01027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020715, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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) 990730 - 991004 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01073

    Original file (ND02-01073.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: USNR (DEP) 880220 - 880831 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880901 Date of Discharge: 901127 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 02 27 Inactive: None No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00698

    Original file (ND03-00698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Hopefully this issue will present itself.Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Applicant’s statement Chapter 11 General Regulations, Section 5. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...