Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00176
Original file (ND00-00176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00176

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991119, 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 000803. 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.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period should read: “91 MAY 08” vice “91 MAR 12”, Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period should read: “02 08 05” vice “02 10 01”, Block 12e, Total Prior Inactive Service should read: “00 01 25” vice “00 00 00”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I have enrolled in school and wanted to use my G.I. Bill. I had signed up for 2 years of service when I entered in the DEP program. I understand the mistakes that I made back then and take full credit, but I don't think that it should stop me from continuing my education. 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: 02 08 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 00

 Highest Rate: MSSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.93 (3)    Behavior: 3.13 (3)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 4

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 :

920109:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in language toward a petty officer, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Wrongfully communicate a threat to a petty officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 10 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
920212:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty by sleeping during working hours on 25Jan92, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Wrongfully communicate a threat to a petty officer on 25Jan92.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days. Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
930414:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobey a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 10Apr93, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in deportment toward a petty officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, correctional custody for 30 days. Forfeiture for 1 months suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
931021:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 14May93 to 17May93 (3 days), (2) Unauthorized absence from 0700-0725, 23Jul93, (3) Unauthorized absence 0700-0715, 26Jul93, (4) Unauthorized absence from 0500, 1Aug93 to 0700, 2Aug93 (1 day), violation of UCMJ Article 134: Disorderly conduct on 18Jun93.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to MSSR. Forfeiture for 1 month suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
931109:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. [Extracted from CO's message dated 22Nov93.]
931109:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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. [Extracted from CO's message dated 22Nov93.]
931122:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

931123:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Absence from appointed place of duty on 0645, 22Nov93, (2) Absence from appointed place of duty on 0645, 23Nov93, (3) Absence without leave on 0715-0815, 23Nov93, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey order on 23Nov93, to wit: attend part I of his separation physical.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
931130:  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 940112 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 issue states: “I have enrolled in school and wanted to use my G.I. Bill. I had signed up for 2 years of service when I entered in the DEP program. I understand the mistakes that I made back then and take full credit, but I don't think that it should stop me from continuing my education. I am asking that my discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Thank you.” The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants re characterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Relief 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 | 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-01022

    Original file (ND00-01022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 901015: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from USS KITTY HAWK, from 0700-0830, 901007, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duty on or about 901007 by failing to clean work center space in a timely manner. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500068

    Original file (ND0500068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00089

    Original file (ND02-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00089 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011010, 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).Issue 1. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01252

    Original file (ND04-01252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-UTCN, USN Docket No. ND04-01252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040806. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00105

    Original file (ND01-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (3pgs) Response Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Congressional correspondence, dated 22 March 2001 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: 890412 Date of Discharge: 920427 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00839

    Original file (ND00-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, the Board found that the applicant has a history of substance abuse, alcohol abuse and a problem with authority. Even though the applicant’s performance evaluation averages were good, the applicant did commit a serious offense by violating UCMJ Article 91 for disrespect toward a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01444

    Original file (ND03-01444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT CAPTAIN MASS AND HE INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP 3 TIMES AND THAT IT SHOWS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND HE RECOMMEND THAT I BE DISCHARGED UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00818

    Original file (ND01-00818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 931122 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00582

    Original file (ND03-00582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00582 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. The Applicant requests the reason for the discharge be changed to “general but not honorable my offenses were not honorable.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review...