Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00768
Original file (ND99-00768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00768

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990512, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000317. 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:GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “3630605” vice “3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.







PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member opines that early manifestations of his subsequently diagnosed psychosis impaired his ability to serve and sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant upgrade of his character of service to honorable.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Character reference dated December 17, 1998
Psychiatric evaluation dated March 2, 1999
Copy of Letter of Appreciation dated April 30, 1996
Copy of Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for 95Jun16 to 96Jan15, 96Jan16 to 96Jul15, and 96Jul16 to 97Jan15
Psychological Evaluation dated February 28, 1997
Copy of awards page

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950418 - 950425  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950426               Date of Discharge: 971104

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: Unknown

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.66 (3)    Behavior: 2.66 (3)                OTA: 2.77        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NER, SSDR, AFEM, NDSM, Letter of Appreciation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970225:  NAS Miramar BMC: Impression: Occupational difficulties. (2) R/O ADD vs impaired aptitude. Plan Consult psychology NMCSD.
970228:  Psychological evaluation: Diagnosis: No formal diagnosis.

 970307:  NJP. No further information found in service record.
970905:  NJP. No further information found in service record.

 971028:  COMCRUDESGRU THREE directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Discharge package missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971104 general (under 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 response to applicant’s issue 1 (EQUITY ISSUE), t o permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. There was no rights violation and no basis for relief. Since much of the applicant’s discharge package could not be located by either the applicant’s former command or by the applicant, the Board must assume regularity in government affairs.
Relief denied at this time.

 The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, 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, DC 20374-5023       


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00718

    Original file (ND99-00718.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980206 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The applicant You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00529

    Original file (ND04-00529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970324: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. 970521: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01150

    Original file (ND01-01150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01150 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00411

    Original file (ND99-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 941217 - 941227 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 941228 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00257

    Original file (ND02-00257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 950824 - 951204 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951205 Date of Discharge: 971104 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 00 Inactive: None 971020: Commanding Officer recommended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00060

    Original file (ND01-00060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010808. 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. Appeal denied 980819.980826: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00634

    Original file (ND01-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was punished while still in service for my unauthorized absence & feel my discharge should have been based on my psychological evaluations. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Eight pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960412 - 960908 COG Period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00912

    Original file (ND03-00912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. 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 | ND00-00088

    Original file (ND00-00088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000720. My discharge was improper because it was based on one incident that happened within 52 months of "honorable" service. The fact that the discharge was based on one incident in 52 months of service does not make the discharge improper, as the applicant suggests in issue 2.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01034

    Original file (ND00-01034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000906 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...