Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00394
Original file (ND00-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MM2, USN
Docket No. ND00-00394

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. 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 000831. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks should read: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 931123 UNTIL 960118, Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142” vice “MILPERSMAN 3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. My discharge of misconduct was a single parent with no care for my son was available ovenight or on deployments. My Chain of command was aware of my hardship and I was led to believe I would be discharged for hardship. Later I found out the X.O. did not like it and was told that no matter what I had to find I way or be punished. I feel this is unfair because I had no control of the situation and Chaplain C_ from NAVSTA Everett did what he could to help me with no success. This is why I believe my discharge should be changed to a Hardship.

 Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of court documents (9 pages)
Statement from applicant
Four pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               931123 - 960118  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930302 - 931122  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960119               Date of Discharge: 990120

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 85

 Highest Rate: MM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (3)    Behavior: 3.67 (3)                OTA: 3.05        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960119:  Reenlisted for term of six years.

 980610:  Applicant briefed concerning conditions of emergency leave. Applicant instructed to report to USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN on 980616 for WESTPAC deployment.

980610:  Applicant briefed concerning regulations and necessary steps required before request is submitted for reassignment for humanitarian reasons. Acknowledged that if these steps are not completed by the end of my emergency leave, applicant subject to administrative action and that request could not be submitted until divorce is final on 980624.

980611:  Applicant on emergency leave until 980616.

980617:  Missed ship’s movement enroute to WESTPAC deployment. [Extracted from Commanding Officer's letter dated 19Jan99.] No further information found in service record.

990108:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
990108:          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.
990119:  Commanding officer directed discharge general (under 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 990120 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).

In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant states “m y discharge of misconduct was a single parent with no care for my son was available overnight or on deployments. My Chain of command was aware of my hardship and I was led to believe I would be discharged for hardship. Later I found out the X.O. did not like it and was told that no matter what I had to find I way or be punished. I feel this is unfair because I had no control of the situation and Chaplain C_ from NAVSTA Everett did what he could to help me with no success. This is why I believe my discharge should be changed to a Hardship.” The applicant was given numerous opportunities by the command to find arrangements for his child. The applicant states that he was led to believe he would be discharged for hardship. The Board disagrees with this statement. The applicant signed a statement on 980610 that to be considered for humanitarian reassignment/humanitarian discharge, several things would have to be accomplished. One of the items listed was that the applicant’s divorce had to be finalized. The estimated date for this was 980624. This was in addition to the applicant obtaining statements from family members and responsible citizens having personal knowledge of the situation and a personal statement indicating the nature of the hardship. The applicant also acknowledged on 980610 that he would be granted emergency leave from 980611-980616 so that he could set up childcare arrangements. The applicant failed to meet the ship on 980616, which he knew was his obligation to do. The ship was enroute for a WESTPAC deployment. The Board found that the applicant knowingly missed ship’s movement on this day. The applicant provided no additional information to the Board to explain why this occurred. Therefore the Board will not grant relief based on 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 of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter 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 any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is 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 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 [e.g., 87, Missed movement] 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 | ND01-01198

    Original file (ND01-01198.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).Issue 1: The Applicant believes that his general discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, i.e. missing ships movement, was inequitable. The Applicant’s service is equitably characterized as general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for discharge, misconduct, appropriately describes...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00456

    Original file (ND02-00456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00456 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On May 4 th I was informed that I was not going to be transferred and that all request where denied.My dad's condition was serious so I took the matter upon myself to leave my duty station on May 6 th 2000 and return home to provide care for my father. I received a General Discharge (under honorable conditions) and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01041

    Original file (ND99-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues (verbatim) Submitted by DAV:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we find the FSM is seeking an upgrade in her discharge to General.The FSM contends that being separated from her family caused a severe amount of stress on her. The FSM was undergoing mitigating circumstances that caused her to attempt suicide. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01127

    Original file (ND02-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. FA (Applicant) (myself) was denied right to speak with commanding officer after going thru proper procedure, to discuss extenuating circumstances/2. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Statement from Applicant, dated October 29, 2002 Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00450

    Original file (ND99-00450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24 & 28 - I put in for parenthood discharge and I had missed ship's movement due to this problem. I have directed that AN (applicant) be separated from the naval service with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980622 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501289

    Original file (ND0501289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “General RE code.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00437

    Original file (ND04-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00702

    Original file (ND01-00702.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00702 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. No indication of appeal in the record.980126: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your CO's NJP on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00658

    Original file (ND01-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00658 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The records reflect the FSM served in the United States Navy from June 24, 1999 to July 5, 2000, with a narrative reason for separation as Misconduct - Serious Military Offense.