Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00974
Original file (ND99-00974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ASAA, USN
Docket No. ND99-00974

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990713, 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:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921001 - 930913  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930914               Date of Discharge: 960123

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 48

 Highest Rate: ASAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.80 (1)    Behavior: 4.00 (1)                OTA: 3.80       4.0 evals
 Performance : 3.00 (1)    Behavior : 2.00 (1)                OTA : 2.00        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, BER, AFEM, SSDR

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

951202:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700 to 2000, 20Nov95, violation of UCMJ Article 91: Disrespect to a superior petty officer on 19Nov95, violation of UCMJ Article 123A (2 specs): Draft without sufficient funds on 13Oct95 and 20Oct95, $2000.00 and $1000.00 respectively, violation of UCMJ Article 128: Assault a petty officer by aggressively rushing towards him on 19Nov95.
         Award: Forfeiture of $478 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ASAA No indication of appeal in the record.
951219:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
951226:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
951230:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

960116:  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 960503 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 91, Article 128, and Article 123A, for disrespect to a superior petty officer, assaulting a petty officer, and drafting without sufficient funds, respectively, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00175

    Original file (ND00-00175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960624: 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.960628: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00708

    Original file (ND01-00708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HTFA, USN Docket No. No indication of appeal in the record.970113: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by a series of at least three (3) but not more that eight (8) minor violations of the UCMJ and by reason of misconduct due to commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00177

    Original file (ND99-00177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00177 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981116, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960325 under other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01232

    Original file (ND99-01232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000713. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00024

    Original file (ND00-00024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 35 Highest Rate: SA Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.20 (3) Behavior: 3.00 (3) OTA: 3.40 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 3630600. After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00618

    Original file (ND04-00618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.950622: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.950622: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.950726: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00149

    Original file (ND04-00149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Forfeiture of $100.00 for 2 months suspended at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 930527 is hereby remitted.930629: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order, violation of UCMJ, Article 123A: Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order without sufficient funds. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00527

    Original file (ND01-00527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-DCFA, USN Docket No. ND01-00527 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010315, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and his re-enlistment code upgraded from an Re-Code-4 to a re-enlistment codes so he may re-enlist. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01014

    Original file (ND00-01014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930805: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".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...

  • 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...