Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00370
Original file (ND00-00370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00370

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000202, 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 unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period should read: “03 02 14” vice “03 02 13”, Block 24, Character of Service should read: “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS” vice “UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS”, Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140” vice “MPM 3630600”, Block 26, Separation Code should read: “HKA” vice “JKA”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. Dear DRB [or] BCMR: The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to Honorable. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree. The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service as less less than honorable does not apply to my case because: 1) My average conduct and efficiently ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good. 2) I was only 9 months to finishing my tour. 3) My record of NJP's/Article 15s are minor offenses. 4) I would like to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces again and make a career of it.

 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: USNR (DEP)     950714 - 950920  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950921               Date of Discharge: 981204

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 58

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 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):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960510:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order on 20Apr96.
         Award: Extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
960510:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey a lawful general regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

960711:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault consummated by a battery.
         Award: Forfeiture of $437.40 per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
961125:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful general regulation on 16Nov96.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
961125:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey lawful general regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

981029:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Failure to pay outstanding debts on September 1998.
         Award: Restriction for 21 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
981117:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and failure to obey Navy Regulations as evidenced by multiple NAVPERS 1070/623 and NAVPERS 1070/607 entries.
981117:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
981118:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

981130:  Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group ONE 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 981204 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant did not submit any evaluations nor did the Board find any evaluations in the applicant’s service record. The Board did find that the applicant had 4 NJPs and 2 retention warnings, which would be significant enough to outweigh any “good” marks he may have received.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the fact that the applicant was “only 9 months to finishing” his tour is irrelevant. The applicant had a well established pattern of misconduct over his 3 years and 2 months of service. This is the reason the applicant was discharged for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

 The applicant states in his issue 3 that his “ record of NJP's/Article 15s are minor offenses.” The Board disagrees with this statement. The applicant was taken to CO’s mast on 4 separate occasions for failing to obey an order, assault consummated by battery, failing to obey a general regulation and failing to pay outstanding debts. The Board finds that several of these offenses are court martiable offenses and not minor offenses. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

The applicant’s issue 4 is a non-decisional issue for the Board.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00063

    Original file (ND01-00063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. "990506: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00495

    Original file (ND99-00495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of charge sheet dated 4 March 1998 Statement from applicant Letter from Department of Treasury to the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01152

    Original file (ND04-01152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00281

    Original file (ND00-00281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980910: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 27Aug98 to 1230, 5Sep98 (9 days). 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00067

    Original file (ND01-00067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00067 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001017, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 980526: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. In response to the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to allow him to get medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00284

    Original file (ND02-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submit this application for a change in my discharge. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Fifty-five pages from applicant's service record 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: 960522 Date of Discharge: 980729 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01065

    Original file (ND02-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Restriction for 45 days. 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).A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00378

    Original file (ND03-00378.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) 970912 - 980623 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 980624 Date of Discharge: 010802 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 01 08 Inactive: None No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01114

    Original file (ND02-01114.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01114 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020805, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.971210: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 971205. Verifiable proof of any post-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00098

    Original file (ND00-00098.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 (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance or was the characterization...