Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00482
Original file (ND00-00482.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PRAN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00482

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant designated the Military Defender as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgment 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001005. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. Recently uncovered expert medical evidence, which confirm that the punishment/discharge of applicant was in error.

2. Senior naval leadership strongly supports redress for applicant to include a personal letter from the former CNO, who was convinced that this sailor deserved another chance.

3. Applicant has lived a productive principled life before and after his stint of military duty. His over-all record should be characterized as Honorable.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
The Military Defender ltr of 28 Mar 2000
Headache and Neurological Treatment Institute (Dr. M_ S_) ltr of Oct 29, 1999
Radiology/Nuclear Medicine Report, VA Outpatient Clinic Orlando, dtd Feb 22, 99
COMNAVBASE, JAX, ADM D_'s ltr to Applicant's Parents dtd Aug 21, 1996
CNO, ADM B_'s ltr to Applicant's Parents dtd 16 May1996

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930724 -940626   COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940627               Date of Discharge: 951116

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: PRAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.0 (1)     Behavior: 2.0 (1)                 OTA: 2.6

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

941229:  Informal counseling: Advised of deficiency in performance (late for work). Advised of corrective actions and assistance available.

950113:  Informal counseling: Advised of deficiency in performance (late for work). Advised of corrective actions and assistance available.
950117:  Informal counseling: Advised of deficiency in performance (late for work). Advised of corrective actions and assistance available.
950322:  Applicant identified as having a behavioral/performance deficiency by being late for work. Was assigned 8 hours of Extra Military Instruction.

950325:  Report of Offense. Disobeying a lawful order from CPO. Failed weekly room inspection on 22 March. Was ordered to be standing by for personnel inspection and room inspection at 0600, 25March. When CPO came by the applicant was asleep. The room was still unsat.
950328:  Applicant identified as having a behavioral/performance deficiency by failing second room inspection on Saturday 25 March 1995. Was assigned 20 hours of Extra Military Instruction.
950404:  Report of offense. Disobeying a lawful written order.

950405:  Report of offense. Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation.

950406:  Report of offense. Work below average. New to shop. Still unsure of job and requirements. Willing to work and learn, once job is pointed out but does not look for work.

950607:  Report of offense. Individual will not or can not conform to military standards or life style. Applicant has been counseled numerous times both verbal and written. He desires not to conform to military standards. Recommend separation due to pattern of misconduct.

950610:  Psychiatry Consult: 19 year old white male reported history of "U/A's" (failure to report, personal and room inspection failures, lack of initiative to learn profession and assist shipmates at collective tasks/responsibilities and ultimately failure to response thru "EMI" and counseling resulting finally in report chit, possibly referral to captain's mast.
         Pt seen, eval by clinical interview, medical and service record review, psychological assessment by MCMJ-II. Pt cooperative.
         Impression: AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features; AXIS II: Mixed Personality Disorder Traits.
         Summary and Recommendation: Pt's personality issues are interfering with the flexibility, coping skills, optimism, self-responsibility and trust required for best adaptation to Navy. It is early in career, however military stress level is low. At this point I see it as 50/50 whether he will be able to adapt. He would have a better change if he could trust and model himself after a peer or one slightly senior. No follow up required. Fit to return to full duty. May follow with Family Services if he wishes. Member is presently well-stabilized and fit for full duty. However if he continued to have difficulty adjusting to the demands of military service and if appropriate, leadership, counseling, discipline and other methods have been tried without lasting benefits, it is recommended that he be administratively separated by his local command as unsuitable for service.
950623:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 Specs):
Spec 1: on or about 1445, 6 Jun 95, without authority, absent himself from place of duty, to wit: Patrol Squadron 30 and remain so absent until on or about 1701, 6 Jun 95 (2 hours and 16 min).
Spec 2: on or about 1445, 13 Jun 95, without authority, absent himself from place of duty, to wit: Patrol Squadron 30 and remain so absent until on r about 1545, 13 Jun 95 (1 hour).
Spec 3: on or about 14 June 95, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: NAS Gymnasium, JAX.
Spec 4:on or about 16 Jun 95, without authority, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: NAS Gymnasium, JAX.
Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (6 Specs): failure to obey order or regulation (25MAR95, 4APR95, 4APR95, 5JUN95, 14JUN95, 16JUN95).
         Award: Forfeiture of $497.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days. Appealed 27JUN95, but denied 13JUL95.

950623:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge and if approved, may be discharged under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense.
950623:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except to obtain copies of documents supporting the basis for the recommended separation.

950623:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge General (under Honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): Inability to comply with regulations have characterized Aircrew Survival Equipmentman (Applicant)’s career. Even with counseling and numerous opportunities to improve, Aircrew Survival Equipmentman Airman (Applicant) has failed to meet the responsibilities of a sailor in the United States Navy. The appropriate course of action is administrative separation. Accordingly, I recommend Aircrew Survival Equipmentman Airman (Applicant)’s characterization of service to be General (Under Honorable Condition).
950725:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge with a General (under Honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

950804:  BUPERS cancelled separation authority and advised command to renotify applicant of administrative separation processing to include consultation with counsel (message retransmitted).

950810:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 Specs): failure to obey order or regulation; violation of UCMJ Article 112: drunk on duty.
         Award: Extra duty for 20 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
950810:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge and if approved, may be discharged under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense as evidence by non-judicial punishment on 21 June 1995 and 10 August 1995.
950810:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
950815:  BUPERS cancelled separation authority and advised command to renotify applicant of administrative separation processing to include consultation with counsel (Message retransmitted).

 951010:  An Administrative Discharge Board was held this date. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, the Board found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to Commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions).

951020:  Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): "Inability to comply with orders and regulations have characterized Aircrew Survival Equipmentman Airman (Applicant)'s entire career. Each NJP shows a total disregard for basic core values. Even with counseling and numerous opportunities to improve, (Applicant)'s has failed to meet the responsibilities of a sailor in the United States Navy. The appropriate course of action is administrative separation. Accordingly, I recommend (Applicant)'s characterization of service to be General (Under Honorable Conditions).

951107:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge with a 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 951116 with a 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 Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states he has uncovered expert medical evidence, which confirms that the punishment/discharge was in error. The evidence provided by the applicant is dated October 29, 1999, almost 5 years after the applicant was discharged from military service. The applicant’s current condition does not explain his condition at the time of his military service. Documentary evidence from a period of time closer to the applicant’s period of service and subsequent discharge from the Navy, indicates the applicant was examined by competent medical authority to determine the origin of his migraine headaches. Results indicate there was no clinical or psychological cause identified at the time. The applicant’s case received indepth, personal scrutiny from as high an authority as the former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Boorda. The applicant was late for work numerous times and received counseling. He went to NJP for unauthorized absence (UCMJ, Article 86, four specifications) and again for disobeying a lawful order (UCMJ Article 92, six specifications). His second and final NJP was for again, disobeying a lawful order and Article 112, drunk and disorderly. These offenses are serious enough characterize the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states a personal letter from the former CNO supports redress for the applicant and that the CNO was convinced that he deserved another chance. The letter from Admiral Boorda states “If (Applicant) really is not drinking, is reporting to work on time and is ready to accept responsibility for himself – and if we can resolve the issue of headaches so he can be a productive member, I would need to talk with him and make my own, personal, judgment about his sincerity and willingness to be a productive member of our Navy.” The applicant was discharged with a General (under Honorable conditions) discharge, which the Board determined was fair and equitable. The applicant’s Commanding Officer was within the guidelines of Navy regulations to discharge the applicant with a General (under Honorable conditions) discharge, by reason of misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense. Relief denied.

In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant states he has lived a productive, principaled life before and after his stint of military duty and his over-all record should be characterized as honorable. The applicant provided no evidence to support this claim. The applicant’s discharge characterizes his entire enlistment and not just the good part. The applicant’s served 1 year and 4 months. His formal counseling began only 6 months after his enlistment and was marred with repeated counseling and 2 NJPs. This is not characteristic of honorable service. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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, Article 92, for disobeying a lawful order or regulation, 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 | ND01-00214

    Original file (ND01-00214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/ MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on XXXXXX. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.If appropriate add the following: The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Accordingly, I recommend Aircrew Survival Equipment man Airman...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00125

    Original file (ND99-00125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of a pre-trial agreement submitted by Petty Officer (applicant) and his counsel, I entertained non-judicial punishment in his case and accepted his request to waive his administrative board and be discharged from the naval service with an Other than Honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00506

    Original file (MD99-00506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 Service Related Documents (7pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 920608 - 930125 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930126 Date of Discharge: 960722 Length...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00043

    Original file (ND01-00043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00043 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable or General/under Honorable conditions. I am an only child and felt responsible for my mother's well being. The applicant states his grief and stress from the loss of his father was the cause of his drug abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00879

    Original file (ND02-00879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 960618: USS CONSTELLATION (CV-64) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by non-judicial punishment on 950810 for violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ, assault consummated by a battery, non-judicial punishment on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00838

    Original file (ND00-00838.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00838 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000628, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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).The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 1: (Equity Issue) This former member contends that there were extenuating...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00057

    Original file (ND04-00057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I strongly recommend GSMFA W (Applicant) receive an other than honorable discharge from the naval service.950905: BUPERS 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 19950911...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00675

    Original file (ND01-00675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00675 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. THE CO OF NAS JAX DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ADMIN SEPARATION BOARD DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DISCHARGE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 970609: Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600427

    Original file (ND0600427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Partial relief based upon this impropriety is warranted.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. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501175

    Original file (ND0501175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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