Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01157
Original file (ND99-01157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND99-01157

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990826, 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 designate representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000727. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned an inequity, but no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall change to: Honorable/Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)
1. I respectfully request that the General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge as per enclosure four (4), Notification of Separation from Commander, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth VA. I also request reinstatement of all Veterans Benefits, to include educational benefits which I paid into via Montgomery G.I. Bill. I would also like release of salary and wage information to the Virginia Unemployment office in pursuant of Unemployment Compensation Benefits.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to Applicant from BCNR dtd 21 Jan 99
Applicant's letter to BCNR dtd Nov 27, 1998
COMNAVMEDCEN Portsmouth's ltr to Applicant dtd 22 Jul 98
Applicant's ltr to CO, Sewells Pt Branch Medical Clinic, Norfolk, dtd 29 May 98
COMNAVMEDCEN Portsmouth's Separation Authority ltr dtd 8 Sep 98
Virginia Employment Commission Determination ltr of 2 Oct 98

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950608 - 950613  HON
                  USNR (DEP)      940804 - 950403  ELS (Med Disqualified)

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950614               Date of Discharge: 980918

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 03 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: HN (E-3)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). [Administratively corrected.]

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940614:  Pre-enlistment physical exam indicated HT -60 3/4", WT - 142 lbs, Build - heavy. Re-evaluated 8JUN95 WT-134, 14JUN95 WT-133 with BF as 34%.
950614:  Applicant enters military.

980512:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of Failure to comply with Physical Readiness Test/ Body Composition Standards as evidenced by your PRT folder and service record entries. [SIGNED BUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY APPLICANT.]

980529:  Applicant acknowledged that she failed to attend remedial PRT from on or about 11 May to 22 May 1998 and requested additional remedial PRT in lieu of nonjudicial punishment.
980529:  NJP for violation of UCMJ - Article unknown.
         Award: Unknown [EXTRACTED FROM COMNAVMEDCEN Portsmouth's ltr of 22 JUL 98.]
980722:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense and Physical Readiness Test Failure as evidenced by Non-Judicial Punishment of 29 May 1998, service record entries, and Physical Readiness Test folder. [UNSIGNED]
[APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF AWARENESS, RIGHTS NOT IN SERVICE RECORD.]

980817:  Separation physical reflects HT - 61", WT - 172 pounds.

 980908:  COMNAVMEDCEN Portsmouth directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service as Honorable by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and physical readiness test failure.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980918 with a General (Under 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found







Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 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 records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01130

    Original file (ND02-01130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.Department of Veterans Affairs, to Applicant, dated Jul 23, 2002, providing the DD Form 293 to the Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950221 - 950314 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950315 Date of Discharge: 980310 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00245

    Original file (ND03-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason changed to Retired. Symptom – Pt stated history of active duty weight control. Under current standards, the Board found that the Applicant would not have been administratively separated by reason of weight control failure.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01201 (1)

    Original file (ND99-01201 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01201

    Original file (ND99-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00215

    Original file (ND00-00215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920610 Date of Discharge: 951114 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 05 05 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time) Inactive: None ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00538

    Original file (ND99-00538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I request the review board change my discharge to an Honorable discharge.. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Referral for Civilian Medical Care dtd 10/29/96 (Diagnosis - Lateral Meniscus tears) Weymouth MRI Diagnostic Centers Exam Report of 11/18/96 Orthopedic Clinic, Naval Hospital, Groton Consultation Health Record page Applicant's Separation Physical Examination of 9 Dec...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00087

    Original file (ND03-00087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a record review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Though Navy regulations only permit conditional waivers for General discharges not Honorable discharges, BM2 M_'s (Applicant) designated military lawyer did not know this and provided erroneous advice to BM2 M_ (Applicant). Navy regulations required that for misconduct to be a serious offense it must be an offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00940

    Original file (ND99-00940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960405: Commanding Officer, USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN, advised BUPERS that member was discharged on 8 April 1996 with an Honorable by reason of weight control failure as evidenced by failing three physical readiness tests on 10 November 1994, May 1995 and November 1995. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 960408 with a general (under honorable conditions) for weight control failure due to not meeting the prescribed physical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00815

    Original file (ND02-00815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged for misconduct. 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).Issues 1: The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. The Applicant’s service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions due to his own misconduct, which resulted in award of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00552

    Original file (ND04-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 87 (2 specs): missing movement; violation of UCMJ Article 92 (2 specs): disobey a lawful order.. Award: Forfeiture of $539 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to OSSA suspended for 6 mos. You may view DoD Directive...