Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00246
Original file (ND00-00246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00246

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991209, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS as his 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: GENERAL(UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. My discharge was inequitable because prior to the incident that resulted in my discharge I was examined at Portsmouth Naval Hospital for back pains due to an increase of the curuature in my spine from the laborous job of a Boatswains mate, which entailed pulling mooring line when entering ports to carry anchor chains to ammo on loads and off loads. Prior to my discharge I was detached from my command (USS AUSTIN) and given a permanent light duty chit with a medical separation pending.

2. (DAV's Issue) The FSM is contending the discharge General, Under Honorable Conditions is inequitable due to an injury incurred while on active duty. The FSM maintains the laborious position and the duties associated with being a Boatwain's mate were aggravating to his medical conditions.

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: USN               None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900925 - 900926  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900926               Date of Discharge: 931022

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.30 (4)    Behavior: 3.05 (4)                OTA: 3.45

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, NUC, CAR, NDSM, SASM(wb*)

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910829:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specs), Spec 1: UA 2 days and 13 hours, Spec 2: Fail to go to appointed place of duty, 5 hours.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

910830:  Retention Warning from [USS WISCONSIN (BB-64)]: Advised of deficiency (You are developing a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by a non-judicial punishment and other minor disciplinary infractions), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920407:  Retention Warning from [USS AUSTIN (LPD-4)]: Advised of deficiency (Failure to go to appointed place of duty), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920407:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failing to go to appointed place of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months) , restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

920417:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Misbehavior or lookout.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
930804:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: Attempts, violation of UCMJ Article 81: Conspiracy, violation of UCMJ Article 109: Destroying non-military property; violation of UCMJ Article 121: Larceny; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Stolen property knowingly receiving, concealed.
         Award: Forfeiture of $350.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2, recommend OTH. No indication of appeal in the record.

930804:  USS AUSTIN (LPD-4) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
930811:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
930914:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions.

930929:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

931012:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 931022 under other than honorable conditions 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).

 The applicant’s first issue states: “My discharge was inequitable because prior to the incident that resulted in my discharge I was examined at Portsmouth Naval Hospital for back pains due to an increase of the curuature in my spine from the laborous job of a Boatswains mate, which entailed pulling mooring line when entering ports to carry anchor chains to ammo on loads and off loads. Prior to my discharge I was detached from my command (USS AUSTIN) and given a permanent light duty chit with a medical separation pending.” The NDRB found that the applicant was discharged for his misconduct not injuries sustained on active duty. The applicant was notified of intended discharge and exercised his rights to an Administrative Discharge Board. The discharge was conducted in strict compliance with the regulations. Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states: “(DAV's Issue) The FSM is contending the discharge General, Under Honorable Conditions is inequitable due to an injury incurred while on active duty. The FSM maintains the laborious position and the duties associated with being a Boatwain's mate were aggravating to his medical conditions.” The NDRB found that while the applicant may have experienced medical conditions while on active duty, this in no way mitigates, excuses or otherwise justifies his documented misconduct. The applicant’s misconduct included: Conspiracy, Larceny, Unauthorized Absence, Knowinly Receiving Stolen Property, and Destroying non-military Property. Relief is denied.

 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 – 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00830

    Original file (ND02-00830.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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910929 - 910708 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910709 Date of Discharge: 930121 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 01 06 13 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00771

    Original file (ND01-00771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00771 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FMS) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to not the contentions as set forth on the application by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00632

    Original file (ND00-00632.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00632 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000418, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My life since being discharged.When you review my records, you will see that I had good marks and a good record leading up to the events that led to my discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00500

    Original file (ND99-00500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213. Specifically, the Former Service Member (FSM) is seeking an upgrade inhis discharge from Other Than Honorable (OTH) to Honorable or General, Under Honorable Conditions.The FSM contends his discharge was not due to his conduct. Relief not warranted.The applicant’s third issue, stated by the DAV, contends the applicant was discharged due to a miscommunication between himself and other personnel rather than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00495

    Original file (ND01-00495.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: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 921123 Date of Discharge: 940628 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 07 06 Inactive: None I would be very grateful, if the board would change my discharge status to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01065

    Original file (ND01-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01065 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010810, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00359

    Original file (ND01-00359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board will not grant relief concerning this issue. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00281

    Original file (ND99-00281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900801: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under Active Mariner Program.910602: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. There was nothing in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00222

    Original file (ND00-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00222 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991202, 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00568

    Original file (MD03-00568.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. 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:...