Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00340
Original file (ND00-00340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PRAN, USNR (TAR)
Docket No. ND00-00340

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000114, 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 000824. 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 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse actions. Attached is my performance evaluations during my 3 years 7 day term to verify my statement and a couple of Letter of Recommendation.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.
Letter from Applicant.
Copy of Notice of Permanent Assignment
Letter of Appreciation (3)
Reference Letter (2)
Copies of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (8pgs)

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: 840628               Date of Discharge: 870904

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 07
         Inactive: 00 02 00

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 48

 Highest Rate: PR3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.24 (5)    Behavior: 3.20 (5)                OTA: 3.36

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

840828:  Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner program.

 870205:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Financial irresponsibility), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
870210:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (2 nd letter in two weeks from creditor/financial counseling concerning non-payment of a bill), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

870430:  Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority, failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Station Legal Office, Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, CA.; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order issued by Lt. R.M C______, Medical Corps, U.S. Reserves, on active duty, to wit: Binnacle/Limited Duty placement to bed rest for a period of 24 hours, by wrongfully leaving Naval Air Station Moffett Field, CA.
         Sentenced to Award: CHL for 30 days, forfeiture of $539.00 per month for 1 month, reduction to E-3.
         CA (870603) Reviewed and ordered executed.

870528:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
870610:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.

870717:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 123: (2 Specifications), Making a check without sufficient funds with intent to defraud.
         Award: Forfeiture of $404.00 per month for 2 months (suspended), restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended). No indication of appeal in the record [EXTRACTED FROM CO'S MESSAGE].
870806:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870827:  CNMPC 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 870904 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. 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 is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter(s) of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter(s) from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided ample documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is strongly encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00388

    Original file (ND01-00388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00388 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010207, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01255

    Original file (ND02-01255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870529: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specifications) , Specification 1 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0800, 870516, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did remain so absent until on or about 1130, 870516; Specification 2 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0500, 870517, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01058

    Original file (ND00-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01058 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000915, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My discharge was inequitable because it was base on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00860

    Original file (ND01-00860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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) 890626 - 900624 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01239

    Original file (ND99-01239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    830820: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from NTC, Great Lakes, IL commencing on/or about 0545, 820913 and termination on/or about 0830, 820922 and Unauthorized absence from USS CHARLESTON (LKA-113), located at Norfolk, VA commencing on/or about 830307 and termination on/or about 830423), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00050

    Original file (ND00-00050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    911015: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 920206 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01237

    Original file (ND03-01237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “Sec Auth.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense, is clearly documented in the service record. As of this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00414

    Original file (ND04-00414.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Statement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00226

    Original file (ND02-00226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 871014 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant did not provide any post service documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00963

    Original file (ND00-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION During the time immediately preceding my discharge, I was never approached by the Navy with any offer of advice, assistance or counseling. 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: