Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00038
Original file (ND00-00038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YNSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00038

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991012, 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 000720. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. My discharge was inequitable because it based on one isolated incident in 32 months of service with no other adverse action.

2. My discharge was related to alcohol abuse in which my commands failed to send me to some type of treatment. The captain in my court martial would not give me a Bad Conduct Discharge because he felt my command had been responsible for part of my alcohol problem. I was in an isolated base in Maine.

3. I was offered an Admin Discharge, or to appear in front of an Admin Board. I was never provided with any legal services. The LT called me in his office and said I would just waive my right and take an Admin Discharge. I did what he said.

4. I'm a productive member of society now with two beautiful children and a great job. I haven't had a drink since 1995. I went into the Navy as a kid with a bright future and came out as an alcoholic. I respectfully request my discharge be upgraded.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     911120 - 920901  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920902               Date of Discharge: 940920

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: YNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.10 (2)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 25

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Under age drinking on 31Jan93.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
930607:  Drug and Alcohol Evaluation: Alcohol dependent. Recommended separation via the VA.
930618:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Misconduct due to alcohol abuse and or drug abuse, as defined in accordance with OPNAVINST 5350.4.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
940406:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Unauthorized absence 940305 – 940323, (18 days)
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 113 (2 specs).
         Specifications: Sleeping and drunk on duty on 3Mar94.
         Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134.
         Specification: Breaking restriction on 5Mar94.
         Findings: to Charge I, II and III and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $500 per month for 4 months, reduction to YNSR.
         CA 940525: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for the portion of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of forty-five days, is suspended for six months from the date the sentence was adjudged, at which time unless sooner vacated, it will be remitted without further action.

940511:  Applicant evaluated by Medical Officer. Diagnosed as alcohol dependant and not amenable to treatment.

940613:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
940613:          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 and to make a statement.
940628:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940825:  CNP forwarded recommendation for applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).

940831:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940907:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 940920 under other than 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).

 The applicant’s first issue states: “My discharge was inequitable because it based on one isolated incident in 32 months of service with no other adverse action.” The NDRB found this issue without merit. The applicant had two documented disciplinary proceedings in his record, one NJP and one Special Court Martial. The applicant was discharged following his conviction at Special Court Martial of Articles 86, 113 and 134. The Article 113 and 134 are considered serious offenses, being punishable by punitive discharge at court martial. Relief denied.

The applicant’s second issue states: “My discharge was related to alcohol abuse in which my commands failed to send me to some type of treatment. The captain in my court martial would not give me a Bad Conduct Discharge because he felt my command had been responsible for part of my alcohol problem. I was in an isolated base in Maine.” The applicant was screened for alcohol dependence and referred to VA for treatment. There is no evidence to support the applicant’s statement reasoning the type of discharge awarded at court martial. Relief denied.

The applicant’s third issue states: “I was offered an Admin Discharge, or to appear in front of an Admin Board. I was never provided with any legal services. The LT called me in his office and said I would just waive my right and take an Admin Dishcharge. I did what he said.” This issue is immaterial as the applicant waived the Admin Board after discussing his case with counsel. There is no evidence of coercion or misbehavior of the applicant’s counsel. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states: “I'm a productive member of society now with two beautiful children and a great job. I haven't had a drink since 1995. I went into the Navy as a kid with a bright future and came out as an alcoholic. I respectfully request my discharge be upgraded.” The applicant provided no documentation to support this issue such as evidence of his sobriety, employment and community service. Relief is not warranted.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | ND02-00434

    Original file (ND02-00434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00434 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020301, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Navy was all I had at that time. Not one of these officers would go on record.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00200

    Original file (ND00-00200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000803. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Five pages from applicant's service/medical records Letter from applicant's attorney to applicant dated March 30, 1994 Copy of Lab report dated March 22, 1994 Copy of Risk Factor Screening/Physical Readiness Test Results (page 1 and 3) Copy of DD Form 214. At this time, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00552

    Original file (ND02-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00552 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I had not ever done drugs in the Navy. 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 Applicant states that he served his country proudly for five years and never had any...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00295

    Original file (ND01-00295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was 17 years old at the time and that told me that he wanted me out of the picture. (c) Commanding Officer's Nonjudicial punishment of 2 May 1992, for violation of UCMJ Article 121 (larceny).940111: Applicant advised of her rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.920203: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01118

    Original file (ND02-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A day later, on August 17, I was told by legal (PO1 S_) in TPU to sign a new admin sep notice but this time the reason was "PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT" (MILPERSMAN 1910-140) therefore not entitled to sep. pay. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge. PART IV -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00053

    Original file (ND99-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge wasn't base on my service in the Navy. No indication of appeal in the record.960813: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by your violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault consummated by a battery on 23 April 1996, Article 134, false or unauthorized pass offense on 26 January 1996, and Article 134, wrongfully committing an indecent act on 23...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00851

    Original file (ND00-00851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The next day I was sent to a Court Martial, which resulted in 30 days in brig and $600 x 2 for the ammo and did not discharge me at that time. The next day I was sent to a Court Martial, which resulted in 30 days in brig and $600 x 2 for the ammo and did not discharge me at that time. I want a personal hearing on this matter.” The NDRB found no impropriety or inequity in the applicant’s discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00955

    Original file (ND99-00955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with (IAW) OPNAVINST 5530.4b, part of my command's responsibilities were to have me immediately screened for alcohol dependency and to help me. While a patient in recovery, I became a role model for others, completed it ahead of time and have been in control of myself since (enclosure 1, pages 1-7 are performance comments from supervisors).2: After having endured a court martial on December 16th of 1997 and an administrative board on January 30th of 1998, both recommending, my...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00574

    Original file (MD03-00574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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).A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Marine. The Board found that the positive aspects of the Applicant’s record, the personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00078

    Original file (MD04-00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION T he NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. 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...