Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00566
Original file (ND00-00566.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STSSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00566

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 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: 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. I feel that my discharge was based on one isolated incident which occurred during my 29 months of service prior to the incident taking place, I attempted to go through the proper channels to deal with my problem.

 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)     900423 - 900916  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900917               Date of Discharge: 930303

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 91

 Highest Rate: STS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.95 (2)    Behavior: 2.90 (2)                OTA : 2.90

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 7

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 :

930103:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0730, 921215 to 1600, 921222 [7days/S], violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Ship's Movement.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

930115:  Psychiatrist interviewed applicant and diagnosed him as unsuitable for further duty due to a severe personality disorder with potential to harm self and others.

930216:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to being medically diagnosed by a competent medical authority as having a personality disorder misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
930216:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
930217:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to being diagnosed with personality disorder and commission of a serious offense.

930224:  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 930303 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 Board found that 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.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, 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 [e.g., 87, missing 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01242

    Original file (ND03-01242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, also advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01034

    Original file (ND03-01034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 89 (2 specs): Specification 1: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 930119. It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00666

    Original file (ND00-00666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I request that the Board review my service record and in behalf of the review upgrade my discharge from general to an honorable discharge. 940114: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01096

    Original file (ND02-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 950221 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The official record notes he was charged with murder by civilian authorities, a serious offense for which a punitive discharge and a life sentence is authorized. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01107

    Original file (ND99-01107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930713: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected 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.930714: Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of convenience of the government due to enuresis and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.930803: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00869

    Original file (ND99-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000323. Unauthorized absence time was administratively determined to be lost time and is charged as non-performance of duty due to expiration of the statute of limitations.840815: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00340

    Original file (ND00-00340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse actions. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00171

    Original file (ND03-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, I can state that I was immature and had certain problems. 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) 19901222 - 19910624 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19910625 Date of Discharge: 19930817 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00045

    Original file (ND00-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000713. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 Board found that the applicant had several very serious violations of the UCMJ.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00052

    Original file (ND99-00052.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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 901207 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of...