Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00072
Original file (ND00-00072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PNSA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00072

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991019, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and that the reenlistment code be changed to RE1. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing. The applicant listed the Texas Veterans Commission as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant 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 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse conquences of my general under honorable discharge. My immaturity as a young man impaired my ability to serve. Not understanding the use of alcohol at that time cause me to act the way I did. Yes this is my fault that it happen. I am now adult and understand.

2. My record of conviction by civil authorities while I was in service indicates only a isolated offenses of DWI. I was taking care of my problem by attaining classes on my own to show that I was a responsible person. But nobody would listen to this only to say you made a false statement.

3. I feel the punishment I received was too hash because I did have a good record before this happen. The disrespectful to a petty office was a two sided affair. He was right all the time, never listen to the other side. He was to young also but they only listen to half the story.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated September 1, 1999
Character reference dated August 19, 1999
Character reference dated June 21, 1999
Character reference dated June 19, 1999
Character reference dated June 10, 1999
Character reference dated May 4, 1999
Character reference dated April 8, 1999
Character reference dated March 21, 1999

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: 920611               Date of Discharge: 951027

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 04 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: PNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.92 (5)    Behavior: 3.44 (5)                OTA: 3.56

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM with Bronze Star, SSDR, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930312:  Civil Conviction: Whatcom County, Washington, District Court for violation of DUI reduced to reckless endangerment, (BAC .10).
 Sentence: Plea agreement and probation awarded: 1) No new trouble, 2) One day in jail, served 17May93, 3) victim's panel, attended, 4) Alcohol evaluation, completed 20Apr93, 5) alcohol/drug information class, not completed.
940225:  Civil Conviction: Whatcom County, Washington, District Court for violation of probation.
         Warrant issued for arrest. Apprehended 14Mar95.
 Sentence: Jail for 8 days.
940715:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 10Jul94.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction for 3 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
950826:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements and Article 91: Disrespect to a Petty Officer..
         Award: Forfeiture of $478 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to PNSA. No indication of appeal in the record.
950828:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
950828:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. [Date estimated.]

940906:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Repeated periods of unauthorized absence from your appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

950911:  Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer's comments: PNSA (applicant) demonstrates a lack of both the maturity and responsibilities required of today's sailors. His poor attitude parallels his declining performance and he is clearly not suited for Navy life. While substandard, PNSA (applicant) does not warrant a discharge characterized as Other Than Honorable. I recommend separation with a characterization of General.

951013:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under 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 951027 general (under 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 response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board does not grant clemency. The Board looks at the propriety and equity of the discharge, in addition to considering post service factors. The Board found that the characterization was both proper and equitable based on the applicant’s 2 NJPs and 2 civilian convictions while in the service. Although the applicant may feel he was immature, the Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. The record clearly reflects the applicant’s 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 2, the Board found that the applicant had more than “isolated offenses of DWI” which in and of itself would be reason for discharge. The applicant had 2 NJPs consisting of unauthorized absences, disrespect and a false official statement. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that his characterization was too harsh. The applicant received a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization which was extremely fair under the circumstances. Normally, for combined offenses such as this, a member would receive an other than honorable. In the applicant’s characterization, the CO recommended a General discharge which is what BUPERs directed. Relief is not granted.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 [e.g., 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days] 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00732

    Original file (ND00-00732.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HN, USN Docket No. ND00-00732 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000518, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 951116: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115 (1)

    Original file (ND01-01115 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. 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 states, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115

    Original file (ND01-01115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. 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 states, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01346

    Original file (ND03-01346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01346 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030807. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I have change throughout the years and I am still changing and learning from the military and personal experiences.”

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00952

    Original file (ND02-00952.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930619 - 930705 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930706 Date of Discharge: 951201 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 04 26 Inactive: None No further actions required in this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00336

    Original file (ND00-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00336 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000118, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge of Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, it is found that (applicant) requests a change of discharge from Other Than Honorable to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00541

    Original file (ND01-00541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00541 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010319, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 issue states: “The statement of my current employer and friend will show you that I have change from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01455

    Original file (ND03-01455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940610 - 940615 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01089

    Original file (ND01-01089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. The Board found no documentation to support the allegation that the applicant was unfairly denied any request for separation or transfer during his enlistment. The applicant’s conduct, which...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00125

    Original file (ND99-00125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of a pre-trial agreement submitted by Petty Officer (applicant) and his counsel, I entertained non-judicial punishment in his case and accepted his request to waive his administrative board and be discharged from the naval service with an Other than Honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and...