Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00806
Original file (ND99-00806.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AE3, USN
Docket No. ND99-00806

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990528, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

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 and reason for the applicant’s discharge. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement: "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 87JUN02 UNTIL 950611", Block 24, Character of Service, should read: "UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS" vice "HONORABLE - UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS", Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: "3630605" vice "3630600", and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “MISCONDUCT” vice “MISCONDUCT DUE TO A COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. This letter is being written as an appeal to have the status of my discharge reviewed and consideration given in the facts submitted herein .

I had acknowledged to my Commanding Officer and my military appointed lawyer that I wrongfully obtained government property and agreed that it was a punishable offense. However, fearing the outcome of a court martial along with my Commanding Officers wish to resolve this matter in his own hands, I ignorantly agreed to accept a discharge categorized as "Other Than Honorable". This I did out of fear of the possibility of an ill-fated outcome that was presented to me by my legal officer. I also misinterpreted information given by my appointed attorney on certain issues that involved future recruitment. by potential civilian employers following my discharge.
I admitted to being guilty of having in my household, Government items that were considered inoperable and disposable, by a maintenance facility where I worked in Whidbey Island, Washington. Interested in these items and knowing the location where they were disposed of, I recovered them for my own use at home which, I do recognize as inappropriate. -After admitting my guilt about the items within my household I did not realize until much later that I had been so upset with the situation at hand that I was actually unclear of the accusations that had been made against me. Civilians items were included, categorized "as stolen" that I had purchased from a neighbor who claimed to be newly divorced and separating from the Navy.
Apparently in my wife's anger over our pending divorce she became vengeful beyond control and would have done anything to destroy my career. Being a previous Naval enlistee herself and with the help of other military friends who were involved with the Naval Air Station Lemoore Security, she reported many of our own belongings as stolen. Since I was deployed at sea during the time that this incident was being reported I had no knowledge of exactly what items where taken from my home at that time. This eventual inventory list that I was given a copy of included these items and stated that they had been turned in by my now ex-wife. I again will tell' you that aside from the government items, the rest of that list consisted of legitimate purchases made by myself, which resulted in several items being returned to my possession by NIS Lemoore following my discharge.
My 10-year career with the Navy was dedicated to the position I held with the utmost pride in the job I performed. I enjoyed the work and miss it immensely. I regret having to leave the military in a fashion of disgrace, however, I feel that dismissal alone was a severe punishment. I am not requesting my improper behavior to be totally abolished, but I am requesting that my discharge which is categorized as "Other Than Honorable" be reviewed and possibly upgraded to a "General Under Honorable Conditions.'
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Applicant's letter to the Board dated 31 Mar 99.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        910412 - 950611  HON
                  USN                       870602 - 910411  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870429 - 870601  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950612               Date of Discharge: 970815

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 02 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 27                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 75

 Highest Rate: AE2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.5 (2)     Behavior: 4.0 (2)                 OTA: 3.93

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NDSM, SWASM(2 Bronze Stars), JMUR, UNM, B"E"R(2), AFEM(1 Bronze Star), MUC(1 Bronze Star), HSM, SSDR (1Bronze Star), NAM(1 Gold Star), LOC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.




 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970805:  COMCARGUE THREE 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 970815 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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 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, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00307

    Original file (ND01-00307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00307 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 990203: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, and committed homosexual conduct by engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act as evidenced by nonjudicial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00706

    Original file (ND04-00706.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00706 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040324. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. AFTER MY UNCLE DIED DEC 8, 1996 AND THE DISCOVERY OF CANCER IN MY AUNT A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER, I REQUESTED LEAVE TO SPEND TIME WITH MY AUNT BEFORE HER LAST DAYS BECAUSE I WAS NOT ALLOW TO GO ON LEAVE TO BE WITH MY DIEING AUNT, I WENT AWOL.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01025

    Original file (ND02-01025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01025 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00710

    Original file (ND04-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980514: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981001: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981021 Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at Miami, FL.981026: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2315, 981026 (228 days/apprehended).981027: Summary Court-Martial. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01095

    Original file (ND02-01095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030501. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00357

    Original file (ND02-00357.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00357 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to separation in the best interest of service. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00299

    Original file (ND01-00299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have submitted this application because I would like to re-enter the Navy. 981229: Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes authorized the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Although the applicant’s discharge characterization was proper at the time of discharge, because of equitable considerations, the Board voted to grant the applicant relief, and change his discharge characterization to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00516

    Original file (ND99-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960813 Date of Discharge: 980720 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 08 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00232

    Original file (ND00-00232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.