Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00055
Original file (ND00-00055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00055

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991013, 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 000713. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I was young and stupid at the time of my enlistment. I really didn't know what I was doing in 1989 or 1990. I had not been away from home like that. The fact that I acted like that is really has no excuse. I was 17 and very immature. I am now 27 and realize that acting like that is stupid. I would like to have my discharge upgraded, because this would be easier to show my son when he gets older. This has bothered me for sometime now.

I have grown up a lot in 10 years. I now know that you have to take your responsibilities, whether you want them or not. I have now been married for three years and have a nine month old son. I also have an associates degree in business and plan on getting a BA in education. I want to teach so I can help kids so they want make the same mistakes I did.

Please consider upgrading my discharge. Thank you for your valuable time.


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

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: 890427               Date of Discharge: 910222

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 29
         Inactive: 00 02 28

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: MSSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.60 (1)    Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 2.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890725:  Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months in the Active Mariner Program.
891122:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0330, 22Nov89.

 891125:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0530, 25Nov89 (3 days/surrendered).

900108:  Retention Warning from USS FREDERICK (LST 1184): Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900109:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
         Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 5 days, loss of civilian clothes privileges for 6 months. All forfeiture but $100 suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
900118:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (unspecified date).
         Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900306:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): (1) Failure to obey lawful order issued by CO, to wit: not to wear civilian clothes across Frederick Co on 4Mar90, (2) Failure to obey lawful order/regulation, to wit: wearing an earring on 4Mar90.
         Award: Restriction for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
901116:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0710, 13Nov90 to 0330, 14Nov90.
         Award: Restriction for 15 days, reduction to MSSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
910111:  Transient Personnel Unit, San Diego, CA notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense as evidenced by failure to obey lawful orders; and misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct as evidenced by three or more punishments under the UCMJ.
910111:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
910204:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense and a Pattern of Misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under Honorable conditions (General).
910208:  Commanding officer directed discharge under Honorable conditions (General) by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense and a Pattern of Misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 910222 under Honorable conditions (General) for misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct (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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he was young, stupid and immature at the time of his enlistment and didn’t know what he was doing. He wants to be able to show his discharge to his son. Unfortunately, the NDRB is under no obligation to upgrade a discharge because the ex-member was young, stupid and immature, at the time of his service, or because the member wants a discharge he can proudly display. The applicant did not serve honorably. His discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims to be married, has a child and has earned an associates degree. The applicant did not provide proof of his claims. 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 . Additionally, the NDRB is authorized to award clemency for post-service factors (what has the applicant done since discharge to become a contributing member of his/her community and to society in general). Those factors include but are not limited to the following: Evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diploma, degree or vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment history (letter of recommendation from employer), documentation of community service (letter from activity/community group), certificate of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of not using drugs (detoxification certificate). The applicant did not provide any documentation to demonstrate good character and conduct. The applicant is encouraged to continue to establish a reputation of good character and document his accomplishments. Documentation to support any claim of good character is a must to receive any consideration based on post-service achievements . The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by the NDRB within fifteen years from the date of his discharge. Legal representation at the hearing is advisable. Relief denied.
 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00011

    Original file (ND01-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It doesn't get you nowhere.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. Regret and remorse alone are no basis upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00252

    Original file (ND01-00252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890705: Retention Warning from Naval Submarine School: Advised of deficiency (Abandoning watch or guard and failing to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. Award: Forfeiture of $345 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 21 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.891215: Retention Warning from USS PEORIA (LST 1183): Advised of deficiency (Below average performance and non-conformity to naval rules and authority. 901120: Applicant from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00550

    Original file (ND02-00550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have worked in the same field since leaving the Navy and I'm responsible for my actions.I'm asking to have my discharge upgraded because I was so young and made mistakes but my hope is to not have this held against me my whole life. No indication of appeal in the record.910520: USS PUGET SOUND (AD 38) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and alcohol abuse rehabilitation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01316

    Original file (ND03-01316.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01316 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. Thank you all for your time & for reading this letter.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant Medical Administrative Assistant certificate Certificate of academic honors PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01163

    Original file (ND99-01163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After careful consideration, I determined that it was necessary to discharge MSSR (applicant) from the Naval service with a characterization of General. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970221 General (under Honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00176

    Original file (ND00-00176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking that my discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Thank you 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) 910312 - 910507 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910508 Date of Discharge: 940112 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00108

    Original file (ND03-00108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00108 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021025, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19881121 – 19890404 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01410

    Original file (ND03-01410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I felt that the Navy had let me down I realized that it was wrong and I hated the Navy and their ways after that day I wanted out and I felt to just get out I would just go UA for a while and they would let me go. I swear to you she did push me and I can’t believe how they handled it and all I want to do is go back into time and do things different, but I can’t so I went a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00593

    Original file (ND03-00593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920224: Drug and Alcohol Evaluation: Applicant found dependent on alcohol based on a medical evaluation following Level III treatment in November 1991.920319: Civil Conviction: Duvall County Court for violation of driving under the influence on 920318.Sentence: Fined $452.50, probation for 6 months, revoked license for 6 months, community service for 50 hours, DUI school and victim impact panel.920406: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700-1900, 920319,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00178

    Original file (ND00-00178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Character reference dated August 25, 1999Copy of thank you letter dated May 21, 1999 Copy of Letter of Commendation dated November 18, 1997Copy of DD Form 214Letter from applicant dated September 20, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890327 - 890430 COG Period of...