Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00292
Original file (ND00-00292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-MMFR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00292

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991227, 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 applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000817. 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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

 1. I feel my discharge was unfair because of the emotional strain placed on my mental state. By my marriage, and the separation from my spouse, while active in the Navy Submarine force. I married at a young age and I also knew military life would be challenging, but the responsibilities on both sides become overwhelming to my mental state. I tried to be the responsible young man and handle my responsibilities, unfortunately I made the wrong choices, which resulted in my separation from the U.S. Navy. I apologize for my actions and humbly ask the board for its forgiveness in considering my change of discharge status. I have been a productive member of society and would like to be considered for federal employment to better secure my family future and my past to be possibly corrected.
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: USN                        None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     851219 - 851225  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 851226               Date of Discharge: 880106

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 00 11
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 60
Highest Rate: MMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NOB                  Behavior: 3.20 (1)                OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

861016:  Civil Conviction at State of Connecticut, Norwich Superior Court for sexual assault in the 4 th degree.
         Sentenced to 60 days in Montville Correctional Center (suspended) for 1 year, fined $500.00 plus court fee of $15.00.
861016:  Retention Warning from [Naval Submarine School, Groton, CT]: Advised of deficiency (Civilian conviction of sexual assault in the 4 th Degree), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

870810:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty, violation of UCMJ Article 113: Asleep on duty.
         Award: Correctional Custody for 28 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

 870824:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speeches and gestures.
Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 7 days (suspended until 870906). No indication of appeal in the record.
871020:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Wrongful use of a controlled substance (THC).
         Award: Confinement on Bread & Water for 3 days, forfeiture of $304.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
871020:  Medical Officer evaluation indicates applicant use THC while UA one time, found not drug dependent.

 871023:  USS BATON ROUGE (SSN-689) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP of 871020 and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP on 871020, 870824, 870810 and civil conviction of 871016.
871027:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
871106:  Substance Abuse Report indicates applicant abused marijuana, dependency not determined, applicant suspected of marijuana use based on girlfriend accusation, consent urinalysis positive for THC.
871113:  Applicant waived Administrative Discharge Board

871202:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct
871220:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 880106 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 Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief is not warranted.

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. 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 he 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 15560A, effective 870615 - 890110), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004

    Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01004 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000830, 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).The applicant’s two issues requested an upgrade based on his post service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00610

    Original file (ND00-00610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00610 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000412, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Restriction and extra duty for 7 days. Award: Correctional Custody for 30 days.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00208

    Original file (ND01-00208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.921210: Retention Warning from [SSC, GLAKES, IL]: Advised of deficiency (Article 86: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place od duty, to wit: Instructor Prep room, Bldg 616. He was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to discharge him with an OTH, was given his rights, and he waived all rights, except to obtain copies of documents. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00244

    Original file (ND00-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct – Drug abuse (Use), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Commanding officer ordered reduction of forfeiture to $530.00 for 1 month.870903: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB Oakland, CA 102100Z AUG...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00770

    Original file (ND03-00770.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00770 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030326. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00129

    Original file (ND03-00129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.881129: Retention Warning from [SSC, NTC, San Diego, CA]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order. No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from [SSC, NTC, San Diego, CA]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 86. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • 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 | ND00-00791

    Original file (ND00-00791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00791 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Employment Reference Letter (2) Thank You Letter to Applicant Letter from American Legion VA Claimant Copy of Medical Documents (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00807

    Original file (ND01-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 900611 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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’s issue states: “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was caused by the bipolar...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00364

    Original file (ND04-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    880326: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 880326.880327: Applicant from unauthorized absence 0140, 880327.880419: Vacate suspended reduction to E-2 awarded at CO’s NJP dated 880114 due to continued misconduct. No indication of appeal in the record.890426: NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 890419, tested positive for cocaine.880429: Vacate suspended reduction to E-1 awarded at CO’s NJP dated 880419 due to continued misconduct.890720: NJP for...