Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00936
Original file (ND99-00936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GMG3, USN
Docket No. ND99-00936

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990702, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed the Military Justice Clinic as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000331. 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, and the Board’s vote 3 to 2 that the reason for the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) / MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1.       The applicant’s discharge is improper because the applicant should have been discharge as a weight control failure and not due to misconduct. The misconduct charge had been dealt with and fines and restitution were made.
2.       The applicant’s discharge is inequitable because it was too harsh and proper consideration were not given to a previous honorable discharge. B. Evaluations; -C. less than four months remaining under the enlistment.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Retention Warning
Driver license reinstatement letter from the Department of Public Safety
Civilian conviction Administrative Remarks from applicant’s service record
Payment authorization form from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jacksonville, Florida

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        880421 - 931215  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880412 - 880420  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 931216               Date of Discharge: 970807

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 07 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 48

 Highest Rate: GMG3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.73 (3)    Behavior: 3.80 (3)                OTA: 3.76 (4.0 scale)

 Military Decorations: NAM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, SSDR(2), SWASM (w/ Bronze star), GCM, Battle E

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960327:  Civilian conviction: Duval County, State of Florida, (1) Driving while license suspended, (2) Speeding, and (3) Obtaining property with worthless check.
         Action by Civilian Authorities: (1) Pled no contest, adjudication of guilt withheld, $125 fine, (2) Discharged, and (3) Pled no contest, adjudication of guilt withheld, $25 fine.

960327:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (civilian conviction ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970506:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
970521:          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.
970714:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to a civilian conviction, and weight control failure. Commanding officer’s comments: “GMG3 C____’s misconduct as evidenced by his civilian conviction is not consistent with that expected of a petty officer in today’s Navy. GMG3 C___ is a substandard performer who shows no initiative or drive to increase his military or professional knowledge and reflects poor military bearing and personal behavior. Petty Officer C__ has recently failed his fourth consecutive physical readiness test and has been on the remedial PT program at Naval Station Mayport. He has waived his right to an Administrative board indicating he no longer desires to be in the military. Based on his actions, GMG3 C___ is no longer suitable for naval service. Therefore, I recommend that he be discharged with an General discharge as soon as possible”.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970807 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Responding to the applicant’s first issue, the Board noted the applicant was dual processed for both commission of a serious offense and weight control failure. Furthermore, the Board noted that it was proper for the Navy to process the applicant for commission of a serious offense. The Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion, associated with his discharge at the time of issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby. Relief is therefore denied on the basis of this issue.

Regarding the applicant’s second issue, the applicant submitted no evidence to indicate that he was not given all due consideration concerning his discharge. The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found no evidence or mitigating circumstances to indicate that the characterization or reason for the applicant’s discharge should change. Relief is denied.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01280

    Original file (ND02-01280.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).The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. 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. The Applicant remains eligible for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00139

    Original file (ND03-00139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. No indication of appeal in the record.000403: DD Form 214: Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.Discharge package missing from service record. At...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01077

    Original file (ND03-01077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Hence, the Applicant was not convicted a second time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00449

    Original file (ND01-00449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 970807: 15 days restriction and reduction to E-2 awarded at CO's NJP on 970724 and suspended for a period of 6 months, vacated due to continued misconduct.970807: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 1230, 970725 to 0621, 970728 [2days/S]; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Breaking restriction on 970725. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00196

    Original file (ND01-00196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 961030: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00515

    Original file (ND99-00515.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00515 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990302, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 months, extra duty for 20 days. Specification: Unauthorized absence 0710, 14Feb97 until 2000, 21Apr97 ( 67 days/surrendered).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00871

    Original file (ND01-00871.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I do not concur with the recommendation that the characterization of service should be General (Under Honorable Conditions) and that his discharge be suspended for 12 months. A discharge under The Board found that the applicant’s high conduct and efficiency ratings likely mitigated against his receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which would be more commonly awarded for his offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00917

    Original file (ND00-00917.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 found that the applicant’s misconduct consisting of a civilian conviction of Driving Under the Influence and hit and run with serious injury to a 10 year old boy outweighed the positive aspects of Naval service and therefore were deserving of a characterization under other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00014

    Original file (ND04-00014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. Airman B_ (Applicant) will continue to be an administrative burden at this command and I strongly recommend that he be separated from the Naval Service under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00563

    Original file (ND99-00563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION That seems like an honorable action to me. Charge III: violation of UCMJ, Article 121, Did, on or about 23 June 97 steal a laptop computer, property of the US Government.