Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00284
Original file (ND00-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00284

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991113, 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 000810. 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 3630605.






PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. I feel that my discharge was improper because it was based on an isolated incident. The original reason for discharge was parenthood. At the time I was a single parent and my son was ill, I was technically U/A but I didn't go anywhere. I also called in to the ship & tried to explain what my child had pneumonia & bronchiolosis which was very serious. My point is I put in $1,200 & a little under 3 years into the service. I need & want my G.I. Bill so that I can attend college and / or business/medical assist school. So I urge you to take consideration what my reason were at the time. I have a family now, two children & a husband & they deserve a mother and a wife who is well educated & a well rounded individual. The G.I. Bill is something I earned so please I would be most grateful to you if you upgrade my discharge to honorable.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (2).
Marriage Certificate (2).

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940802 - 940808  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940809               Date of Discharge: 970616

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 44

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.50 (2)    Behavior: 2.00 (2)                OTA: 2 .52

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 6

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from unit 970423-970429[6days], violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Ship's Movement on or about 970429 through design.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days (suspended for 3 months), reduction to E-2 (suspended for 3 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
970509:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE].
970509:          Applicant advised of her rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE].
970512:  Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CASE FILE]. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): SN___(applicant) received non-judicial punishment on 6 May 1997 for a serious offense against the UCMJ. After absenting herself from the command for 6 days, SN___(applicant) intentionally missed ship’s movement for a 6 month deployment. This command relies on Sailors such as SN___(applicant) to make movement to accomplish our mission. Any other policy undermines readiness. Accordingly, I have separated SN___(applicant) locally with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970617 under other than 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).
In issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident". The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant provided no documentation that her son was seriously ill at the time of her ship’s deployment. The applicant is responsible for her actions and must accept the consequences of her misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

Concerning the G.I. Bill, the applicant would need not only an Honorable discharge but also 36 months of active service to receive benefits. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization 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.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.

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 87, for missing ship’s movement through design, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00549

    Original file (ND03-00549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 950710: Applicant ordered to active duty.970429: Applicant missed ship’s movement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980430 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00098

    Original file (ND99-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971030 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of 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).The applicant desires to upgrade his discharge in order to obtain Montgomery GI Bill...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00358

    Original file (ND02-00358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB requested the Applicant provide pertinent documentation to the Board for review, if available. The NDRB received no response from Applicant to this request. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • 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 | ND00-00252

    Original file (ND00-00252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991214, 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 (D and E).In issue 1, the applicant states that his “discharge was inequitable because...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00899

    Original file (ND01-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970313: Applicant to confinement.970411: Applicant from confinement. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Specification: Missed ship's movement on 7Oct96. 971027: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00525

    Original file (ND03-00525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational benefits as requested in the issue. Furthermore, the Applicant was properly notified he was being discharged for a personality disorder and misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00916

    Original file (ND04-00916.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his mother’s illness and personal stress. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00256

    Original file (ND03-00256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00256 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021126, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Unauthorized absence over 30 consecutive days is a serious offense. E. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days), and Article...