Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00629
Original file (ND00-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00629

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000418, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Montgomery, AL. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC Area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 001206. 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).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I received a General discharge from the Navy with the reason being a "Commission of Serious Offence". Although what I did was wrong this reason has become burdensome in getting several benefits including Re-entry. What happened two years ago is something I have learned from. I have matured GREATLY since then would like to get my reason for discharge changed and my re-entry code changed to better reflect what happened. I am doing this so that I may re-enter the Navy and for basically no other reason. Thank you for hearing my statement.

 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: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950721 - 960707  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960708               Date of Discharge: 980610

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 39

 Highest Rate: ADAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM, SSDR

 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 :

980214:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specification): Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 91: Disrespect toward a petty officer
         Award: Forfeiture of $519.15 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ADAA. All punishment suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 4Jun98.]
980519:  Vacate suspended forfeiture of $519.15 for 2 months and reduction to ADAA awarded at CO's NJP dated 14Feb98 due to further misconduct.

980519:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey an order or regulation on 13Apr98 and 21Apr98.
         Award: Forfeiture of $1/2 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ADAR. All punishments suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
980604:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980604:          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.
980604:  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 980610 general (under 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).

 The applicant’s issue states: “I received a General discharge from the Navy with the reason being a "Commission of Serious Offence". Although what I did was wrong this reason has become burdensome in getting several benefits including Re-entry. What happened two years ago is something I have learned from. I have matured GREATLY since then would like to get my reason for discharge changed and my re-entry code changed to better reflect what happened. I am doing this so that I may re-enter the Navy and for basically no other reason. Thank you for hearing my statement.” The NDRB found the discharge proper and equitable. Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Pers-282, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, is therefore, denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB.

The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended.





Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .

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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00861

    Original file (ND00-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000705, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Another mitigating circumstance at the time of my discharge was the indication by the legal officer involved that there would not be a material difference in perception between an honorable discharge and a general discharge under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01383

    Original file (ND04-01383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.The applicant has asked that the Board upgrade his discharge from Other Than Honorable conditions. After a thorough review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00486

    Original file (ND99-00486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ADAA, USN Docket No. Specification 1: Unauthorized absence on 24 March 1997 to 29 April 1997 (13 days). I recommend that ADAA (applicant) be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable Conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00142

    Original file (ND03-00142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) One page from Applicant’s service record (2) Statement from Applicant, dated June 15, 2003 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19990323 – 19990419 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19990420 Date of Discharge: 20000320...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01009

    Original file (ND99-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    To Whom It May Concern, My name is (applicant), I was discharged from the Navy on a under other than honorable discharge. My reason for the way I performed was because I was going through alot of personal problems back at home and I wanted out to try and correct them also I felt that the division I was working for at my command wasn't right. The applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided an application is received by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00394

    Original file (ND00-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00394 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. 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 At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00520

    Original file (ND03-00520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00520 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Relief denied.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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01322

    Original file (ND03-01322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01322 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days.961024: Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.961028: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Failure to go to place of duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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 issue states: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...