Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01234
Original file (ND99-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND99-01234

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990921, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Chicago, IL. The applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000606. 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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. (Equity issue) This former member avers that his recruiter mislead him as to which A school he would attend. On the basis, he opines that his misconduct of record of sufficiently extenuated to warrant separation under honorable conditions.

2. (Equity issue) This former member further request that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Statement from applicant's step-father dated March 25, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960531 - 960826  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960827               Date of Discharge: 980206

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 81

 Highest Rate: SR

 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: 226

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.

970214:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 14Feb97.

970218:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

970306:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

 970308:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1700, 8Mar97 (22 days/ surrendered).
970512:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 1530, 12May97.

 971224:  Applicant apprehended by civil authorities at 0230, 24Dec97 in Western Springs, IL (226 days). Returned to military control 0320, 24Dec97 at NACIC Great Lakes, IL. Transferred to TPU Great Lakes at 1007, 24Dec97.
970613:  Applicant declared a deserter. Unauthorized absence since 0700, 13May97.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980206 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 issue 1, the Board found that the applicant signed a new Enlistment Guarantee (NAVCRUIT 1133/52) on 960826 which guaranteed him a Seaman Apprenticeship. Although there was a change the day before the applicant shipped for recruit training, his signature was clearly on it and it does not excuse the fact that the member went UA for 248 days. While UA, the applicant also missed ship’s movement and could have been court martialed for these offenses. No relief warranted based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the applicant presented no documentation to warrant an upgrade based on his post service accomplishments. No relief granted.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00269

    Original file (ND02-00269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00269 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 000216 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00033

    Original file (ND03-00033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980407: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980407 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00967

    Original file (ND00-00967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00967 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000816, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Personal Hardship. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 response...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00226

    Original file (ND04-00226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00226 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031120. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00600

    Original file (ND99-00600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650). Letter from Commanding Officer, USS PETERSON (DD 969),received date MAR 27 1998. 980310: Applicant submits request for Administrative Discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01325

    Original file (ND03-01325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01325 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00544

    Original file (ND03-00544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00544 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030213. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01190

    Original file (ND01-01190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01190 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Hardship-RE-3. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 991216 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00505

    Original file (ND04-00505.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. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 020329: Applicant reenlisted for six years on-board USS HARTFORD.030501: Discharged, DD214 issued reads: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, reflecting unauthorized absence totaling 234 days.Applicant’s discharge package not in service recordPART III –...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00336

    Original file (ND04-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. E. 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. 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...