Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01242
Original file (ND99-01242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YNSA, USN
Docket No. ND99-01242

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990923, 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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Discharged in absentia.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. My discharge was improper because at the time of the offences I was suffering from the illness of alcoholism. At the time of my misconduct I was U.A. four times between 84Nov28 through 85Mar29 for a total of 61 days. During this period I was at the height of my addiction. The compulsion to drink was so great that it over road my responsibilities and commitments to the Navy. Although I never sought help during this period I understand now that I was in a state of denial about my disease. I also know that much more is known about warning signs and treatment of alcoholism now than in 1984.
I believe my record was good up until this point with the exemption of a captain’s mast for falsifying official document. The document was a service ID card. I changed the date of birth so that I would be of legal age to drink. I also attribute this action to my disease.
Since the time of my discharge I have received help. I have over eight years of continuous sobriety. I am raising a family and consider myself a decent and patriotic citizen. It is with regret that I consider the missed opportunities, which my service in the Navy may have afforded me. Respectfully yours,



 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s father, dated October 12, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s sister, dated October 12, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s stepdaughter, dated October 10, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s father-in-law, dated October 10, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s wife, dated October 11, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s second step-daughter, dated October 10, 1999.
Character reference letter from the applicant’s sister-in-law, dated October 11, 1999.
Verification of past employment letter from Electro-Nite Co., dated October 4, 1999.
Character reference letter from a friend of the applicant, dated October 12, 1999.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     820812 - 821109  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 821110               Date of Discharge: 850329

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 72

 Highest Rate: YNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (2)    Behavior: 3.20 (2)                OTA: 3.82

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 58

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Discharged in absentia.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

831215:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements on 7 Dec83, to wit: alter an official document by placing his own photograph on another service member's identification card.
         Award: Extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
840816:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful written order on 13Aug84.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
850124:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 1000, 28Nov84 until 1150, 4Dec84 (6 days/surrendered), (2) Unauthorized absence from 1000, 7Dec84 until 0815, 19Dec84 (11 days/surrendered), (3) Unauthorized absence on 0700, 20Dec84 to 0745, 9Jan85 (19 days/surrendered).
         Award: Forfeiture of $347 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to YNSA. No indication of appeal in the record.
850214:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.
850214:  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.

850307:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 7Mar85.

850311:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

850313:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense. Discharged in absentia.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 850329 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims his discharge was improper because he was suffering from alcoholism and that his record was good with exception of the captain’s mast for falsifying an official document. The applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense and not alcoholism. His offenses, although not heinous, in the eyes of the military, are a serious violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Honorable service is a cherished and sacred honor to military members. Out of respect for those that have given their lives and served their country with honor, we do not grant or approve an Honorable discharge as if it is the right of everyone that serves in the military. You must earn that honor. The applicant did not earn that right while serving in the Navy. It is commendable that he has been able to turn his life around and become a respectable citizen, but he has not provided sufficient documentation to justify upgrading his discharge. The NDRB has the authority to grant clemency to those, it feels, have made the type of life change claimed by the applicant but not without sufficient proof. Character reference letters from friends and family are a good start but additional items are needed. 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, subsequent to leaving military service. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge, to determine if proper procedures were followed. This applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.



 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/84, effective 17 Sep 84 until 15 Dec 85), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 92: Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation and Article 107: False official statement, 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 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 | ND02-00540

    Original file (ND02-00540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00540 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 911126 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00001

    Original file (ND01-00001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Applicant's Private Pilot license Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Applicant's Explanation Letter for Issue 1 dtd 27 Jan 2000 Applicant's Explanation Letter for Issue 2 dtd 6 Jun 2000House of Representative B_ O_ ltr of Apr 20, 1994 to RADM W_ J. F_ concerning applicant House of Representative B_ O_ ltr of May 13, 1994 to the Applicant Application...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01205

    Original file (ND99-01205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) As the documentary evidence of record supports, this former member further opines that his post-service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board's clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. Therefore, it is recommended that AR (applicant) be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct, in absentia.870722: Applicant declared a deserter. It is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00361

    Original file (ND02-00361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknolwedgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentay review prior to any personal appearance hearing. All punishment was suspended upon the following conditions: Good behavior for 3 years which includes no violations of class 1 or class motor vehicle laws, $290.00 fine, and shall serve 3 months in jail.960719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00284

    Original file (ND03-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HTFR, USN Docket No. ND03-00284 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged in absentia on 19920601 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00070

    Original file (ND01-00070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :841211: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.850905: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications): Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 1Jul85 to 1929, 6Jul85 (5 days/surrendered). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged in absentia on 870717 under other than honorable conditions for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00047

    Original file (ND01-00047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :941114: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: Article 1159, U.S. Navy Regulations by possessing a firearm on board a Naval installation on 27Sep94. 951214: 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, drug abuse and commission of a serious offense, that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00944

    Original file (ND02-00944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00944 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I most strongly recommend that SH3 (Applicant) be separated as soon as possible under Other Than Honorable conditions.930518: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00888

    Original file (ND99-00888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. 890915: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01087

    Original file (ND99-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 9Jul90 to 14AUG90 (36 days). 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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he successfully completed the first 4 years of his enlistment and because he was not transferred to a...