Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00087
Original file (ND00-00087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RMSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00087

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991019, 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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record with NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE, 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: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880628 - 890725  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890726               Date of Discharge: 911213

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: RMSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.40 (2)    Behavior: 2.40 (2)                OTA: 2.90

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 168

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900206:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ, article 134: Unauthorized lending of AFID during personnel inspection), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910329:  To UA.

910502:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 910426 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0645, 910329 from NAVCAMS MD.

910509:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 910508 (1135) at OLD SAYBROOK, CT. Returned to military control 910508 (1135). Returned to SUBASE NEW LONDON, CT.

910722:  To UA.

910820:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 910820 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0700, 910722 from TPU, SUBASE, GROTON, CT.

911202:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 911127 (1100) at OLD SAYBROOK, CT. Returned to military control 911127 (1100). Retained onboard for disciplinary action/disposition.

No further information in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 911213 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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

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 | ND02-00764

    Original file (ND02-00764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. 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).Issue 1: The Applicant requests post-service clemency. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00643

    Original file (ND04-00643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00643 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040309. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. A_ C_ (Applicant).”

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00863

    Original file (ND99-00863.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SMSN, USN Docket No. ND99-00863 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief to a fully Honorable discharge is, however, not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I have been very involved in the Children’s Ministry at my Church and in Latino Affairs at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00693

    Original file (ND00-00693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00693 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. haracter references educational achievements post service letters will follow.” The Board never received any additional information from the applicant, therefore no relief is granted based on this issue.In the applicant’s issue 3,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00632

    Original file (ND03-00632.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. “To the Honorable Discharge Review Board; I request to have my discharge up-graded. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00382

    Original file (ND00-00382.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00382 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “(Equity Issue) This former member further requests 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.” The following is provided for the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00579

    Original file (ND04-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00579 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 86: Did on or about 910826, without...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00483

    Original file (ND99-00483.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213. 840719: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.850104: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. 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 introduced no decisional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00442

    Original file (ND00-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-DCFR, USN Docket No. Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 1113, 900705 onboard USS FAIRFAX COUNTY at Little Creek, VA. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910329 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).