Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00430
Original file (ND00-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EMFN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00430

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000217, 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 000907. 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 J____ P C______, while serving onboard USS FORRESTAL CV-59 Mayport FL make the following statement. I J____ P. C___ received an other than honorable discharge for the reasons stated. In 1988 EMFN P____ found a box of flakes AN-77 on the flight deck of USS FORRESTAL CV-59. He then proceeded to pick the box up & take it down to E-DIV Berthing, where he placed many meters in his locker, later he told many people in E-DIV about the meters, and then sold them to people in E-DIV I bought a mete for $20.00 & used it only on the ship for the division. My LPO at the time saw me placing my name on the meter. He ask me where I got it so I told him. He then told my division officer and from that I went to Captains Mast (Many people brought meters from ENFN P____ but when asked if they brought it or it was given to them they said given and not purchased for money. I was discharged for stolen property but no one else went to captains mast that also had meters? ENFN P____& myself where the only ones that went to Captains Mast because we told the truth whereas the other men lied about paying money for the meter. This was unjust & unfair that only two people went to Captains Mast instead of everyone you bought a meter but didn't admit to paying for it I record was flawless until the USS FORRESTAL.

 2. I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the blame why should two people suffer for many people untruthfulness? Many chiefs in E-DIV also knew but, was covered up to protect certain people I feel this issue needs to be addressed in more depth then it was. I did nothing different that many other people in E- division at that time except one thing I told the truth. Its been said that the truth will set you free (in this case the only thing it did was get me to Captains Mast along with EMFN P____ while nothing ever happened to fellow shipmates the purchased a electrical meter.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Newspaper Article
Copy of Major Appliance Repairs Transcript (5pgs)
Copy of Certificate of Completion (Electrocardiograph Technician)
Copy of Certificate of Recognition (Major Appliance)
Copy of Certificate of Completion (Refrigerant Transition and Recovery)
Character Reference Letters (3)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USNR              820201 - 850228  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     810928 - 820131  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 850301               Date of Discharge: 881206

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 09 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 22

 Highest Rate: EM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.37 (8)    Behavior: 3.32 (8)                OTA: 3.57

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, SSDR, AFEM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 4

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 :

850301:  Reenlisted at NAVRESCEN ST PETERSBURG, FL for 4 years.

 871008:  Retention Warning from [USS FORRESTAL (CV-59)]: Advised of deficiency (Your performance and conduct have been unsatisfactory. You were awarded CO's NJP on 871008 for violation of Article 92: By willfully allowing his liberty risk charge to elude him.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

871008:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty in that he willfully allowed his liberty risk charge to abandon him on 870927.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 45 days, reduction in rate (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
880324:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully bought stolen property on 880301.
         Award: Forfeiture of $520.00 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-4. No indication of appeal in the record.

881118:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 881101 to 881105 [4 days/S].
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
881118:  Medical evaluation states there is not evidence of neurotic or psychotic disorder. Subject is able to determine right from wrong. There is not evidence of physiologic or psychological addiction to drugs of alcohol. There is not medical contraindication to administrative discharge found at this time. SNM is no recommended for further service.

881118:  [USS FORRESTAL (CV-59)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment and Misconduct due to commission of a serious offenses, to wit: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 - Willful dereliction of duty on 870927 and Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 - Wrongfully purchasing and receiving stolen property on 880301.
881118:          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.
881123:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offenses

881201:  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 881206 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 applicant’s first issue states: “I J____ P C______, while serving onboard USS FORRESTAL CV-59 Mayport FL make the following statement. I J____ P. C___ received an other than honorable discharge for the reasons stated. In 1988 EMFN P____ found a box of flakes AN-77 on the flight deck of USS FORRESTAL CV-59. He then proceeded to pick the box up & take it down to E-DIV Berthing, where he placed many meters in his locker, later he told many people in E-DIV about the meters, and then sold them to people in E-DIV I bought a mete for $20.00 & used it only on the ship for the division. My LPO at the time saw me placing my name on the meter. He ask me where I got it so I told him. He then told my division officer and from that I went to Captains Mast (Many people brought meters from ENFN P____ but when asked if they brought it or it was given to them they said given and not purchased for money. I was discharged for stolen property but no one else went to captains mast that also had meters? ENFN P____& myself where the only ones that went to Captains Mast because we told the truth whereas the other men lied about paying money for the meter. This was unjust & unfair that only two people went to Captains Mast instead of everyone you bought a meter but didn't admit to paying for it I record was flawless until the USS FORRESTAL.” The NDRB considered this issue and found that it was one of three NJP’s the applicant was found guilty for in his enlistment. The basis for the applicant’s discharge, however, was his commission of a serious offense (Violation of UCMJ Article 92 Dereliction of Duty) on 871008. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states: “I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the blame why should two people suffer for many people untruthfulness? Many chiefs in E-DIV also knew but, was covered up to protect certain people I feel this issue needs to be addressed in more depth then it was. I did nothing different that many other people in E- division at that time except one thing I told the truth. Its been said that the truth will set you free (in this case the only thing it did was get me to Captains Mast along with EMFN P____ while nothing ever happened to fellow shipmates the purchased a electrical meter.” The NDRB considered this issue and found that it was one of three NJP’s the applicant was found guilty for in his enlistment. The basis for the applicant’s discharge, however, was his commission of a serious offense (Violation of UCMJ Article 92 Dereliction of Duty) on 871008. Relief is not warranted.

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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00120

    Original file (ND04-00120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00120 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031023. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At the time of my Captains Mast hearing I was going to receive 45/45 45 days in jail and 45 days no pay.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00407

    Original file (ND00-00407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When asked why I told them the reasons listed above. CA action 910423: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for that portion of the punishment adjudging confinement in excess of 11 days is suspended for 6 months.910423: USS FORRESTAL (CV 59) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03872-01

    Original file (03872-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 5 October 1999, AO2(AW/SW) (Petitioner) (then a frocked Chief Petty Officer) called the house of a shipmate, EM3 (B). a verbal argument over the phone, which ended when ENFN (A) gave (Petitioner) the address to EM3 (B's) house. commanding officer at the NJP and that of the ADB.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00810

    Original file (ND04-00810.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I did what I was asked to do and still got more punishment than the other 3 people I listed.

  • 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600099

    Original file (ND0600099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00099 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051012. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). It was then that another discharge was recommended, but this time the Captain signed it.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01365

    Original file (ND97-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no indication of an appeal in the record.960506: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 91, disrespect toward a third class petty officer on 950929; Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to...

  • CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2004-169

    Original file (2004-169.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant also sent the Commandant copies of the statements indicat- ing that SN P had admitted to hiding marijuana on the cutter at some point, and he alleged that SN D had told the chief who represented him at mast that the marijuana belonged to SN P. He alleged that the chief and SN P were very “close.” In addition, he alleged that another seaman, who went to mast for drug use on the same day he did, stated at mast that he had seen SN H smoke marijuana. The JAG pointed out that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500738

    Original file (ND0500738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USNR Docket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01323

    Original file (ND02-01323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01323 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to RE-3D Failure to Meet Disciplinary Standards. The Duty Officer told the Duty Chief that I was sick and would not be coming to Dink Study that night. So later on that night I asked him again and STS1 S_ stated, "I don't feel qualified to give you a walkthrough."