Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01136
Original file (ND99-01136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01136

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990825, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 000616. 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 4-1 that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I feel the punishment awarded was not fair. I strongly believe that while in the Navy I suffered from a mental disorder. The mental disorder was not detected by the Navy. Shortly after discharge from the military, I seeked help at the local Community Mental Health Clinic. I believe because of my mental illness, that illness was part of why I went UA from the Navy, plus among other things. It appears that from Documents 1 and 2, Veterans L_ Medical illness could very well have contributed to his behavior while in the Navy.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Statement from Day Rehabilitation Specialist dated August 20, 1999
Twenty-two pages of Physician's orders and progress notes from Douglas County Hospital dated from June 11, 1997 to July 19, 1999
Psychiatric Evaluation dated November 25, 1998
Psychiatric Evaluation dated May 13, 1997
Ltr from Orchard House dtd 25 Apr 00
 Additional Documents from applicant’s service

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               890417 - 930409  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890214 - 890416  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930410               Date of Discharge: 970207

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 09 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 10 GED           AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: PN2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (4)    Behavior: 4.00 (4)                OTA: 3.95        4.0 evals
 Performance: 1.80 (5)    Behavior: 2.72 (5)                OTA: 2.05        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM, NDSM, SSDR, GCM (2), JMU

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 30

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961122:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0001, 22Nov96.

 961211:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1714, 11Dec96 (19 days/surrendered).
961216:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 16Dec96.

 961227:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1830, 27Dec86 (11 days/surrendered).
961230:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Unauthorized absence (Total of 30 days).
         Award: Forfeiture of $735 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to PN3. Forfeiture for 1 months suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
970103:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence (2 specs)), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970116:  Intern Outpatient Note: Impression: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with marked stressors.

970124:  Vacated suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP dated 30Dec96 due to continued misconduct.

970124:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $589.05 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to PNSN. No indication of appeal in the record.
Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970207 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 NDRB reviewed the applicant’s issue and found that the reason for discharge was the applicant’s documented misconduct. The NDRB considered the applicant’s post service medical condition and found that it did not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct while on active duty.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00246

    Original file (ND01-00246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Appeal denied 990909990921: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.990921: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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 990923: Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00475

    Original file (ND99-00475.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I worked really hard for my merits in the Navy and I believe that my discharge should be upgraded to "General" Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Personal statement from applicant Letter from applicant's parents Letter from a doctor from UCSD Outpatient Psychiatric Services dated November 18, 1998 Copy of DD Form 214 Police record check from San Diego Police Department dated March 9, 1999 PART II...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00847

    Original file (ND04-00847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Now that accepting my punishment these past years I request a change. 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 | ND99-00702

    Original file (ND99-00702.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    971008: 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 and commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971112 under other than honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00037

    Original file (ND99-00037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00037 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981006, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Naval Mobile Construction notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by your 21 May 1996 unauthorized absence from a formal Level III, Aftercare Program session with the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00877

    Original file (ND02-00877.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My command told me there was no way that I could be reassigned. 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).Issue 1: The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00634

    Original file (ND99-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. [EXTRACTED FROM REPORT AND DISPOSITION OF OFFENSE(S) (NAVPERS 1626/7]980126: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishment of 2 Feb 96 for violation of UCMJ - Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful...