Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00780
Original file (ND99-00780.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-00780

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990520, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000323. 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)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks, add the following sentence: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 91JUL17 UNTIL 93JUL20.” The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.





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:
Copy of DD Form 214 and no others

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        910717 - 930729  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     901117 - 910716  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930730                        Date of Discharge: 980131

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 06 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 74

 Highest Rate: MM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (2)    Behavior: 4.00 (2)                OTA: 3.90 (4.0 scale)             4.00 (1)                 3.00 (1)                          3.57 (5.0 scale)
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NEM, GCM, AFSM, SWASM (2), SSDR (2), NDSM, ASR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL(UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960808:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (failed to meet the physical readiness standards of OPNAVINST 6110.1D due to being overfat.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.
970110:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (failed to meet the physical readiness standards of OPNAVINST 6110.1D due to being overfat), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

970716:  Applicant counseled but declined to participate in the Navy’s Obese Rehabilitation Program.

970828:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation in that the applicant did onboard USS BOISE, on 10/21/97 , at 1400, fail to take an accurate set of SRW Logs, as it was his duty to do so, to wit: The 700 RA system was depressurized at 1327 and 1400 log reflected no change since last hours logs. Additionally, he failed to turn over Brig Fire orders to the oncoming watch as he was ordered by the EOOD prior to watch relief.
         Award: Reduction to E-3.

970828:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (as evidenced by his violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 counts), on or about 28 August 1997. He used poor judgment and showed a serious lack of attention to detail dealing with a Danger tag. In addition, he needed to show more initiative in trying to lose weight and by participating in the mandatory PRT program.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

971008:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (failed to meet the physical readiness standards of OPNAVINST 6110.1D due to being overfat.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

971029:  That portion of punishment of reduction in rate to next inferior paygrade, awarded at Commanding Officer’s Non-judicial Punishment on 28 August 1997, suspended for six months (RIR only), is hereby vacated effective 29 October 1997 due to continued misconduct as evidenced by your second violation of UCMJ Art, 92- Dereliction in the performance of duties.

971031:  Applicant submitted an appeal of the non judicial punishment held on 28 October 1997.

971203   Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, due to a Pattern of misconduct and Commission of a serious offense, as evidenced by all nonjudicial punishments in your current enlistment, and by reason of weight control failure, as supported by your failure to remain within prescribed bodyfat standards.
9712XX:  Commander, Submarine Squadron 8 found the contentions listed in the appeal were without merit, and denied the appeal.
980120:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected waive all rights except to obtain copies of documents that will be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Operations supporting the basis for the proposed separation.
980131:  Commander, Submarine Squadron 8 discharged applicant with General discharge for misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.

980709:  BUPERS directs COMSUBRON EIGHT to issue new DD-214 to reflect correct SPD code of JKA to indicate applicant was separated for Pattern of misconduct.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980131 General (Under 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).

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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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, DC 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, DC 20374-5023       


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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’s first issue states: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00970

    Original file (ND00-00970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.970806: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disrespectful in language toward a petty officer; and communicating threats. No indication of appeal in the record.980929: Vacate suspended forfeiture of $400.00 for 1 month, extra duty for 15 days and reduction to MS3 awarded at CO's NJP of 4Aug98 due to continued misconduct.980929: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89 (2 specs): Disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01456

    Original file (ND03-01456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01022

    Original file (ND01-01022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01022 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010802, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (Equity Issue) This former member requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00561

    Original file (ND03-00561.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980723: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specifications), Failure to obey order or regulation. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00082

    Original file (ND01-00082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On this basis, he requests the Board’s relief with recharacterization of his service period to honorable. On this basis, he requests the Board’s relief with recharacterization to of his service period to honorable. Relief is therefore denied.The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00728

    Original file (ND01-00728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.000529: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.000529: 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 000613: Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00812

    Original file (ND00-00812.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980615 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 equitable (C and D).The applicant’s issue states: “I was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions due to the issue I...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00300

    Original file (ND00-00300.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) 960118 - 960220 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960221 Date of Discharge: 980805 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 05 15 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00411

    Original file (ND03-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00411 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030114. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.