Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00153
Original file (ND00-00153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DPSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00153

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991108, 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 000727. 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 – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. My general under honorable conditions discharge from the United States Navy was based on behavioral problems and personality conflicts I was experiencing with my chain of command. These behavioral problems and personality conflicts surfaced after my discharge in the form of schizophrenia. Dr. N_ in DOCUMENT 2 states that "...one might wonder if his discharge from the Navy involved any such symptoms." I was never referred for any psychological testing prior to my discharge.

2. Surfacing psychological problems may have caused the drop in evaluations from 3.8 to 2.8 and made desertion seem like a legitimate answer to my problems.

3. Since my discharge from the Navy, I've recieved counseling through Seven County services and went back to college. I will graduate from the University of Louisville with a degree in psychology and a degree in Pan-African Studies in May 2000. I plan to attend Southern Baptist Theological seminary in August of 2000 to pursue a degree in pastoral counseling for my master's.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Psychiatric evaluation dated February 3, 1995 (2 copies)
Letter from licensed Clinical Psychologist dated December 13, 1994
Copy of Unofficial transcript from University of Louisville (2 copies)
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890303 - 890327  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890328               Date of Discharge: 930224

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 10 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 90

 Highest Rate: DPSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (4)    Behavior: 3.50 (4)                OTA : 3.65

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR (2), KLM, NDSM, SASM with 2 Bronze Stars, BER, NUC, JMU

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 57

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910203:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully utilized SN's telephone credit card number.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 25 days, reduction to DPSA. Reduction suspended for 3 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
920406:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 6Apr92.

 920506:  Report of Declaration of Desertion. Applicant declared deserter 5 May 92 having been an unauthorized absentee since 6 APR 92 from USS SAN DIEGO.
920603:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant surrendered to Transient Personnel Unit, Norfolk VA. 0730, 02 JUN 92 (57 days UA).
        
920924:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specifications).
         Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 6Apr92 – 0730, 2Jun92, [57 days/surrendered.]
         Specification 2: Failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty at 1800, 2Sep92.
         Specification 3: Failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty at 0630, 3Sep92.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87.
         Specification: Miss movement through neglect on 22May92.
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 60 days, reduction to DPSR.
         CA 921119: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

921112:  Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

The remaining portion of the applicant’s discharge package is missing from his service
record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930224 under Honorable conditions (General) 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states, his discharge was based on behavioral problems and personality conflicts with his chain of command, and he was never referred for any psychological testing. The Board agrees with the applicant’s issue. However, the results of these behavioral problems and conflicts was desertion for 57 days and missing ship’s movement. Both violations of the UCMJ were court martial offenses. Additionally, when processing an individual for separation, and determining the reason for separation, misconduct takes precedence over a medical condition. Psychological testing was not required. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant presents psychological problem was a possible cause for his desertion, which is irrelevant. His reason for deserting does not mitigate the fact that he deserted. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board determined this is not a decisional issue. It is commendable that the applicant has been able to recalibrate his life and get back on track to being a productive citizen. Unfortunately, continued education alone is not enough to qualify for a discharge upgrade. 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). However, accomplishing a single post-service factor is not justification to qualify a member for a discharge upgrade. His service record, in addition to his post-service accomplishments are reviewed and then the determination to upgrade a discharge or not is made by the Board. The applicant did not provide enough 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 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, 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, 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days; Article 87, Missing ship’s movement, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01238

    Original file (ND99-01238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I also submit to you another issue, that at the time all this was going on with my grandfather dying I was going through a divorce an was stressed when I was out at sea. I am asking that I be considered for a general discharge for reasons being that I have served in the navy honorably for 2 years and 9 months without prior non-judicial punishment. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00566

    Original file (ND00-00566.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 930303 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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 found that the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01098

    Original file (ND99-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920717: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 2 days, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order. 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’s Commanding Officer was within his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01422

    Original file (ND04-01422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 950923: Applicant returned to military control on 0600, 950923 by Navy Deserter Information Point, Washington, DC.951018: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Relief denied.The Applicant contends that because he was discharged prior to receiving treatment for drug or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00354

    Original file (ND00-00354.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My JAG officer at the time told me to accept my discharge and some day in the future change the status. 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 NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01160

    Original file (ND99-01160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [See Navy records for my 1 st discharge, which is Honorable.]2. No indication of appeal in the record.840707: Vacated suspended reduction to BMSR awarded at CO's NJP 6MAR84 due to continued misconduct.840707: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 29JUN84 to 30Jun84 (1 day). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00673

    Original file (ND00-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000428, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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: “At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00429

    Original file (ND02-00429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 870618 - 870908 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870909 Date of Discharge: 920710 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 10 02 Inactive: None 920602: Applicant notified of intended recommendation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00086

    Original file (ND00-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It does not, however, change anything about the fact that the applicant had 4 NJPs, 2 retention warnings, was declared a deserter and was discharged from the Navy in absentia. The characterization is based on his time while in the service, which was served under other than honorable conditions.

  • 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.