Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00920
Original file (ND99-00920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND99-00920

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990630, 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 any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000411. 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 3630600.



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.
Letter from applicant (3 pgs).
Universal Technical Institute verification letter.
Transcript from Universal Technical Institute.
Letter of Recommendation (2pgs).
Reference Letter from Instructor from Universal Technical Institute.
Employment Reference Letter.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR(DEP)      None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920730               Date of Discharge: 940425

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 03
         Inactive: 00 01 22

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 64

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 3.00 (2)                OTA: 3.50

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 31

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920923:  Ordered to active duty for 24 months under the Gendet Enlistment program (Seaman Apprentice Guarantee).

921021:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful general regulation, to wit: By possessing a battery powered, fully automatic BB gun aboard a naval vessel, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Endangering public animals, to wit: Seagulls by shooting a BB gun at them..
         Award: Forfeiture of $457.00 per month for 2 months ($457.00 per month for 1 month suspended for 6 month), restriction and extra duty for 30 days (25 days suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
940317:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs): UA, 0700-940207 to 1535 940307 (30days/S), UA from 0700 940310 to 0700 940311 (1day/S); violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship's movement through design on 940208.
         Award: Forfeiture of $416.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
940324:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
940325:          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 submit statements on own behalf either verbally or in writing and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
940412:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940420:  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 940425 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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).

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 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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 87, for missing ship’s movement through design, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01009

    Original file (ND03-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00444

    Original file (ND03-00444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure of the command PRT due to being over body fat standards. The Board notified Commander, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, TN and recommended the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00051

    Original file (ND02-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.900802: Retention Warning from USS SEATTLE (AOE-3): Advised of deficiency (Misconduct due to violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit for 12 days and violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement. No indication of appeal in the record.920723: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP dated 18Jun92 due to continued misconduct.920723: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 13Jul92 to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00116

    Original file (ND00-00116.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 21 Years Contracted: 4 (11 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 36/28 Highest Rate: BT3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.53 (6) Behavior: 3.50 (6) OTA: 3.57 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, MUC, NUC, KLM, SASM (4), SSDR (2) Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00503

    Original file (ND04-00503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D_ N_ (Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880725 Date of Discharge: 900424 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 01 08 29 Inactive: 00 04 22 Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 8...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00153

    Original file (ND00-00153.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 (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00627

    Original file (ND03-00627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00887

    Original file (ND99-00887.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB found no evidence in the record nor did the applicant provide any supporting documents to support this issue. The applicant did not provide any documentation regarding her post service conduct for the Board to consider. 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. 20310-1809The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01087

    Original file (ND99-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 9Jul90 to 14AUG90 (36 days). 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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he successfully completed the first 4 years of his enlistment and because he was not transferred to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00284

    Original file (ND01-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :930616: Counseling: Advised of deficiency (personal behavior), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.930618: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 2130, 8Jun93 to 2330, 14Jun93 (6 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 9Jun93. No indication of appeal in the record.950808: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable...