Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00755
Original file (ND99-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00755

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990310, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel. 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 000331. 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 (verbatim)

 1. I served on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) during the most complex overhaul and refueling ever performed on a Navy Vessel. I have been exposed to Radiation, heat, silicon dust and what ever else was floating around in that dangerous environment. I made some mistakes while on the Enterprise, but I pulled my Duty, Stood my watches and took pride in my command. I paid for my GI Bill my first year of Duty on E-1 pay while paying child support along with my normal Bills. I have been sober since Oct of 95. I respectfully request an upgrade so that I may further my Education and provide a better life style for my children and family. I thank you in advance for consideration of my request.

 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)     920626 - 920713  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920714               Date of Discharge: 950424

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 38

 Highest Rate: MR3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.80 (2)    Behavior: 3.80 (2)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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 :

940526:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit 940514-940515 (1day/S), violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement on 940412, violation of UCMJ Article 121: Larceny of non-government property over $100.00.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

940902:  Applicant completed Level III Rehabilitation at the Naval Alcohol Rehabilitation Center, Norfolk, VA.

950106:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully supplying alcohol beverages to persons under the age 21, violation of UCMJ Article 112a: Wrongfully use a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, violation of UCMJ Article 134: (2 Specs), Drunk and disorderly and solicitation to commit a offense.
         Award: Forfeiture of $511.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FN. No indication of appeal in the record.

950113:  DAAR indicates cocaine abuse, as a result of command/supervisor, found alcohol and drug dependent by medical officer, recommended for separation via VA Hospital.

950203:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the naval service as evidenced by your Chronological Record of Medical Care, alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.
950302:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel, certified under UCMJ Article 27B to waive all rights.
950313:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into the naval service, alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.

950405:  BUPERS 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 950424 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that t he applicant was briefed on the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1984 (G.I. BILL). Specifically, he was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for entitlement to benefits under the G.I. BILL.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 107, false official statement, 121, larceny, 112, wrongful use of a controlled substance, etc.] 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 Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00166

    Original file (ND01-00166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00166 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is denied.The applicant’s second issue states: “The truth is I had requested 4 times with a request chit to be discharged from the service prior to my Captains Masts. My request is to have an honorable discharge, Thank you.” The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s service record and found no impropriety or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00159

    Original file (ND99-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930824: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed alcohol rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to serious offense, misconduct due to civil conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended separation be suspended for 12 months, discharge general under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00964

    Original file (ND99-00964.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AZAN, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 950825 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s discharge certificate will be reissued to read UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) / MISCONDUCT.While the Board voted to upgrade the applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00963

    Original file (ND00-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION During the time immediately preceding my discharge, I was never approached by the Navy with any offer of advice, assistance or counseling. 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 | ND02-01082

    Original file (ND02-01082.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. I submitted an application to have my discharge upgraded from Other Than Honorable to Honorable. Therefore, I recommend that he be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge,]960209: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00666

    Original file (ND04-00666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 civilian life subsequent to leaving naval service. Relief denied.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01058

    Original file (ND00-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01058 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000915, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My discharge was inequitable because it was base on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01158

    Original file (ND03-01158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01158 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030620. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to administrative or other term to indicate honorable service. 931015: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01204

    Original file (ND03-01204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01204 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030708. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :950216: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages under the age of 21, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00281

    Original file (ND99-00281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900801: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under Active Mariner Program.910602: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order. 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. There was nothing in...