Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00883
Original file (ND99-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND99-00883

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990618, 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 a 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1.       I believe that my command unfairly took action against me after writing a chit for request of separation for hardship purposes. My command stated that it was denied. Then the command stated I falsified a pt record vital signs. I thought this was unjust sending me outside my base to be tried at a different command for false accusations. I went to mast for this. I was temporarily reassigned to a different command for 30 days. I was perfect there. Under recommendations from the LCPO, LPO, and CO to my old command they wanted me to stay. My old command denied their request. I was sent back to my command. I was assigned to janitorial services and treated unfairly. Consistently discriminated against. I had received a speeding ticket in North Carolina and requested to appear in court. I showed them the wrong citation on accident. Again was sent back to mast being set up on charges unbenounced to me. The charges were not true, but the Capt. Believed the SLPO and I was discharged under other than honorable for misconduct. I believe I was treated unfairly and there was a major conflict of personalities between myself and the SLPO.
2.       I feel that I was unjustly accused of Gun Decking the vital signs of a Senior Chief at Norfolk Naval Shipyard Branch Medical Clinic. Before being questioned or having a proper inquiry performed, I was written up and charged with Article 92 and 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Senior Chief’s vital signs were never retaken to sustain my claim of innocence. I do believe that this was inappropriate action on the part of my Senior Personal, each Corpsman deserves the right to defend themselves when accused of and inappropriate action.
3.       After serving thirty (30) days extra duty due to the Gun Decking charge I returned to Norfolk Naval Shipyard Branch Medical clinic where I was singled out from other corpsmen and tasked to do work that would not normally be done by Corpsman. These tasks included but were not limited to picking weeds scraping gum off of the outside sidewalks and cleaning the parking lot of cigarette butts and trash. These tasks would normally be done by the cleaning and yard maintenance workers. I believe that that the Senior Enlisted Personnel did this to further punish me for the unjust Gun Decking charge and to make an “example” of me. This is inappropriate behavior by Senior Personnel there is no reason why a fellow Corpsman should be discriminated against in this manner or punished twice for he same discrepancy.
4.       I requested one (1) day of special liberty to accompany my fiancée to a court date regarding a traffic violation. The command requested a copy of the moving violation ticket to prove the need for liberty. The violation ticket was faxed to the command; unfortunately, it was the wrong moving violation ticket. My wife had received two (2) moving violation tickets in one week and the second ticket was faxed to the command. Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information. I was not given a chance to produce the appropriate citation nor was I given a chance to explain the situation. I was immediately written up on Articles 92 and 107 of the Universal Code of Military Justice and discharged from the Navy under other than honorable conditions.
5.       I believe that since being in the civilian world, that I have become a productive citizen. I am currently a Firefighter Flight Paramedic at a nuclear power plant. I think that in the years since the Navy, I have proven myself worthy of an upgrade in discharge to general under honorable conditions. The Navy did teach me honor, commitment and courage as promised. I believe that with this upgrade in discharge, it would help me in becoming a more productive citizen in the community. It would allow me to work as a Firefighter Flight Paramedic for a Fire Dept.
6.       Upon enlisting in the Navy, I was lead to believe that the Hospital Corpsmen due get to go to sea in the capacity of SAR Corpsmen. While in Corps school I inquired in how I could go about getting that type of training and which duty station would best suit me for this type of training. After completion of “A” school training I was sent to NNYS BMC. While there I found out that I was lead to the wrong command and that there was no such training available to Corpsmen for SAR at sea. I believe that was an obvious lack of personal training deficiency in that fact that the Corps school Career Counselor had no idea that I was looking for a paramedical position on a helicopter for air sea rescue. I needed to go to NATOPS in Pensacola, FL or to a command that had an air base. I believe that the Navy did not fulfill its standard in guiding me in the right direction for a long lasting career. I think that the Navy needs to look into this situation, to prevent this kind of mistake from happening again in the future to other shipmates. I was a graduate with distinction in my class from Corps school. I had a dream that I would be promoted soon that year to 3 rd class Petty Officer and getting medals pinned upon my chest. I was looking forward to the training that the Corps school upon arrival promised me at my next command. This turned out to be false and totally misleading. Being that if I was sent to the proper command to start with, I would still be in the Navy enjoying a great career. I think this definitely would have made a big difference in the outcome of my enlistment obligation in the US Armed Forces.
 .
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
 Letter dated 990913

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950718 - 951211  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951212               Date of Discharge: 961121

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 11 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (ONE YEAR EXTENSION)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 73

 Highest Rate: HN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA 0.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 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 :

960806:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty, violation of UCMJ Article 107: Making a false official entry on an official document.
         Award: Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HA (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
961022:  CO, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth vacates suspended Reduction in Rate due to continued misconduct.

961022:         NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False Official Statement.
         Award: Reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
961029:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
961029:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

Discharge package is incomplete.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961121 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).

1.       The NDRB found no evidence in the record to substantiate the applicant’s first issue. Relief not warranted.
2.       The NDRB found no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s second issue. There is no evidence of an appeal by the applicant in either of his NJP’s. Relief denied.
3.       The NDRB found no documentary evidence to substantiate the applicant’s third issue. The record is devoid of documentation that supports this claim. Relief denied.
4.       The NDRB found no evidence to substantiate the fourth issue. There is no record of appeal in the record and the applicant provided no documentary evidence to support this issue. Relief not warranted.
5.       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.
6.       The NDRB found no promise or other evidence to suggest that the applicant was promised duty as a SAR Corpsman. Relief denied.
 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00006

    Original file (ND99-00006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00006 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 980928, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to re-enter military (army). 970606: Commander, Naval Base Seattle directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00253

    Original file (ND04-00253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.The service record is incomplete. No...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00839

    Original file (ND01-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Force of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the appellant of an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable discharge to that of a General, Under Honorable Conditions. The applicant is reminded that his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00164

    Original file (ND01-00164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 961119: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Was on or about 961117, onboard USS CARL VINSON (CVN-70), found drunk while on duty as a restricted man. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01392

    Original file (ND03-01392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. MY LEAVE CHIT WAS DATED FOR ME TO TAKE A LEAVE ON 16 DECEMBER 2000 THROUGH 15 JANUARY 2001 AT 1730. WHEN WE RETURNED FROM UNDERWAY, THE MASTER AT ARMS CAME UP TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN AUTHORIZE TO TAKE LEAVE.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00534

    Original file (ND04-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I completely understood, but I didn’t have another form of payment on me, so I left my checkbook with the cashier so she knew I was coming hack. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980904: NJP held this date [Extracted from service record].981009: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00275

    Original file (ND04-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00275 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031201. 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 “ADMIN SEP.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:License PhotographApplicant’s DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00581

    Original file (ND02-00581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Based upon his misconduct, I believe that ABHAA H_ (Applicant) has no potential for further naval service and recommend that he be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.] 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00348

    Original file (ND99-00348.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only reason why I did enlist in the U.S. NAVY is to receive my education benefits. No indication of appeal in the record.970111: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.970111: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00441

    Original file (ND01-00441.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 response to the applicant’s issue, to 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...