Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01233
Original file (ND99-01233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND99-01233

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990921, 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 000530. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Good citizen since discharge.

2. Attending Eastern New Mexico University - Roswell Campus with a strong B+ grade point average.

3. Working & going to school.

4. Paying my own way through school.

5. My average conduct and efficiency rating/behavior and proficency marks were good or pretty good.

6. My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.

7. Personal problems impaired my ability to serve - (Girlfriend was in Longview, Texas - broke up over Christmas Leave 1995), (she was sleeping around).

8. I should have gotten a medical discharge because I was not medically qualified to serve ( I spent four weeks, half of boot camp on Light Limited Duty, due to an ankle injury sustained in the Summer of 1991, that should have disqualified me to serve, but Dr. who gave me physical evaluation at Shreveport M.E.P.S. Office was a real quack).



Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from applicant.
Resume (5pgs).
Copy of dates pertaining to year in the U.S.Navy.
Character Reference Letters (4).
Letter of Recommendation.
Letter from Pastor of First Baptist Church.
Copy of Eagle Scout Certificate (2).
Copy of National Eagle Scout Association Certificate (2).
Copy of Phi Theta Kappa Certificate.
Copy of Record of Donations
Copy of DD Form 214
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940805 - 950723  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950724               Date of Discharge: 960723

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 46

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

Discharge package missing from service record.

960415:  UA from SERVSCOCOM, Great Lakes, IL since 0645.

960520:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 960516 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0645, 960415 from SERVSCOLCOM GREAT LAKES IL.

950531:  From UA.

960605:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 960531 (1700) at LAREDO, TX. Returned to military control 960531 (1930).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960723 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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).

In the applicant’s issues 1 through 4, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided ample documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted.

In the applicant’s issue 5, the Board did not find any enlisted performance mark averages in the applicant’s service record. Regardless, the applicant was only in the Navy for nine months before he went UA and deserted. The applicant did not have enough time in the service to receive an enlisted evaluation that the Board would use to weigh in the applicant’s favor. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 6, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.

In the applicant’s issue 7, the Board found nothing in the records nor did the applicant submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant’s chain of command. In fact, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education, test scores, prior service, promotions and awards were sufficient to qualify him for enlistment. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 8, a medical diagnosis, on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his misconduct of record. In fact, the Board has seen no connection between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct which began before his medical condition and continued after his condition was resolved. Relief is not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article [e.g., 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-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 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00961

    Original file (ND00-00961.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like the Board to review my service record and consider on upgrading my discharge to an Honorable. 960415: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2130, 15Apr96 (116 days/surrendered).950506: Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 5Dec95 until 2130, 15Apr96.pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00204

    Original file (ND00-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, an unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days may be subject to a bad conduct discharge if the applicant is convicted at a Special or General Court-Martial. The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00683

    Original file (ND03-00683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the absence of the Applicant’s request for separation in lieu of court martial, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and the Board found the discharge and characterization of service proper and equitable. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00364

    Original file (ND01-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I really liked the service. 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’s issue #1 states that an unplanned pregnancy and youth and immaturity were his reasons for desertion. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00119

    Original file (ND04-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00119 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031027. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :020304: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 Specifications): Failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted muster.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00643

    Original file (ND04-00643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00643 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040309. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. A_ C_ (Applicant).”

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00433

    Original file (ND04-00433.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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant is informed that there is no law or regulation that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01220

    Original file (ND99-01220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01220 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 960214: Applicant surrender from deserter status 0730, 14Feb96.960229: Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 24Apr95 until 14Feb96.UNDATED: Medical Examination: After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00478

    Original file (ND02-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00478 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV Issue) After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00623

    Original file (ND01-00623.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 (D and E).The Board considered the applicant’s issue (letter) describing the circumstances surrounding his misconduct. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support his issues at that time. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...