Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00278
Original file (ND00-00278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00278

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991228, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed a civilian counsel as his representative on the DD Form 293. Representative submitted no issues.

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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

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, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950620 - 950926  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950927               Date of Discharge: 970929

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 9 GED            AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.00 (4)    Behavior: 2.00 (4)                OTA: 2.25        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, AFEM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961217:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duties on 27Oct96, violation of UCMJ Article 107: Sign an official record, which was false on 27Oct96.
         Award: Forfeiture of $437 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to AR. No indication of appeal in the record.
961217:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to perform his assigned duties as a V-4 Fuels watch, as it was his duty to do.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970910:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1400-1800, 9Aug97.
         Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970912:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct.
970912:          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.
970918:  Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970929 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).

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), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 107, false official statement.

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 | ND99-00274

    Original file (ND99-00274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. 970730: Commanding Officer, USS DAVID R. RAY request MS2 (applicant) be retained at TPU San Diego, CA for administrative separation. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00604

    Original file (ND99-00604.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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The applicant did not provided any documentation of good character or conduct, which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01195

    Original file (ND99-01195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 970313: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless driving. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00562

    Original file (ND00-00562.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00562 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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).Although the applicant’s discharge package was missing, the Board assumed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00907

    Original file (ND99-00907.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). No indication of appeal in the record.980804: 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.980804: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00487

    Original file (ND01-00487.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00487 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to AR. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000614 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00284

    Original file (ND99-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00284 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981218, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I am requesting an upgrade in my discharge from General under honorable conditions to an Honorable discharge. 000000: Applicant advised of his rights {APPLICANT DID NOT SIGN OR DATE}.970508: Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00222

    Original file (ND04-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19971215 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00046

    Original file (ND99-00046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant dated September 21, 1998 Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Thirty-eight pages from applicant's service/medical records Copy of Evaluation dated 97Jul14 to 97Aug31 (2 copies). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971107 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00280

    Original file (ND00-00280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980304 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...