Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00673
Original file (ND00-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND00-00673

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000428, 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 001121. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I was entering into.

2. At my first duty station, I immediately received harassment from some of my shipmates and superiors. I sought counseling and assistance from the Chaplin and my immediate chain of command and none was forthcoming.

3. During the Persian Gulf Conflict my father was disabled with Emphysema. At the end of the conflict I requested a separation so I could return home and assist my family. I was told there was no way I could separate.

4. During my term in the Navy, I did provide faithful service as evidenced by the following citation: National Defense Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

5. Despite certain incidences of harassment and the family emergency for which I was unable to receive assistance, I understand that none of this excuses my misconduct. However, I do believe these were serious mitigating factors that led to my (Other Than Honorable) discharge. I ask the board to reconsider the status of my discharge in light of these factors and my faithful service during a time of conflict in the Persian Gulf.

 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)     910605 - 911001  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 911002               Date of Discharge: 930715

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 8                         AFQT: 52

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920928:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority fail to go to appointed place of duty on 920912 and 920917, violation of UCMJ Article 90: Willfully disobeyed a lawful command from LTJG; violation of UCMJ Article 117: Wrongfully use provoking words toward shipmate on 920916.
         Award: Forfeiture of $392.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
921023:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeyed a lawful order from the Commanding Officer by missing 10 restricted men's muster.
         Award: Correctional Custody for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

930506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Without authority absent himself from his unit from 0500 to 0820, 930405, and failed to go to appointed place of duty at 0730, 930406, 0730, 930407, 0730, 930409, and 0730, 930414.
         Award: Forfeiture of $407.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

930519:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully disobeyed a lawful order by wrongfully missing 8 restricted men's musters.
         Award: Forfeiture of $407.00 per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

930511:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930511:          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.
930512:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

930518:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.


930601:  Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS INDEPENDENCE to wit: You are directed not to depart the ship for any reason without prior written permission of the proper authority, in accordance with Punitive Restriction Order dated 930506, and order which it was his duty to obey, did on board USS INDEPENDENCE, located at Fremantle, Perth, Western Australia, on or about 930529, willfully disobeyed the same by wrongfully departing the ship while being in a restricted men's status.
         Sentence: Confinement for 20 days.
         CA (930603) Sentence approved and ordered executed.
930617:  Released from confinement and returned to full duty.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 930715 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).

 The applicant’s first issue states: “At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I was entering into.” The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

The applicant’s second issue states: “At my first duty station, I immediately received harassment from some of my shipmates and superiors. I sought counseling and assistance from the Chaplin and my immediate chain of command and none was forthcoming.” The record is devoid of any evidence, and the applicant failed to provide documentation to support this issue. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s third issue states: “During the Persian Gulf Conflict my father was disabled with Emphysema. At the end of the conflict I requested a separation so I could return home and assist my family. I was told there was no way I could separate.” The record is devoid of evidence to support this issue. Furthermore, the record shows the applicant was found guilty of various offenses under the UCMJ in four NJP’s and one Summary Court Martial. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s fourth issue states: “During my term in the Navy, I did provide faithful service as evidenced by the following citation: National Defense Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.” The NDRB found the positive aspects of the applicant’s service were outweighed by the applicant’s significant pattern of misconduct. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s fifth issue states: “Despite certain incidences of harassment and the family emergency for which I was unable to receive assistance, I understand that none of this excuses my misconduct. However, I do believe these were serious mitigating factors that led to my (Other Than Honorable) discharge. I ask the board to reconsider the status of my discharge in light of these factors and my faithful service during a time of conflict in the Persian Gulf.” The Board found the applicant’s significant misconduct far outweighs any possible aspects of his positive contributions. An Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service. Relief is denied.
The applicant may make a personal appearance before the board up to 15 years from the date of discharge.
 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00045

    Original file (ND01-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The Board determined these issues are not decisional issues but are statements of fact and require not further comment. The Board determined there is no evidence of racial discrimination in the applicant’s service record, nor did the applicant provide any such documentation to support his allegations.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00975

    Original file (ND99-00975.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. I wish to request that the Navy review board examine my records and come to a decision to upgrade my discharge to Honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :800109: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Marine Program.800214: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0445, 14Feb80.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00883

    Original file (ND99-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00883 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00368

    Original file (ND00-00368.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant states that he was “young” and that his “knowledge about the military was nil” and the “navy did not counsel me they just punished me.” The applicant had significant misconduct, both in the service and in the civilian sector. Regardless of an Administrative Board's recommendation, CHNAVPERS is Separation Authority for members being separated by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by sexual perversion or sexual...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00480

    Original file (ND03-00480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00480 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030203. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00652

    Original file (ND00-00652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SKSR, USN Docket No. The NDRB found nothing in the applicant’s record to support this issue. The applicant’s issue states that the applicant’s campaign medals and awards warrant an upgrade to the discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00721

    Original file (ND01-00721.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 990512: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000914 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00422

    Original file (ND02-00422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00422 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Issue submitted by Disabled American Veterans letter dated May 14, 2001 Dear Chairperson: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 continue to support the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00091

    Original file (ND02-00091.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant Copies of DD Form 214 (4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000128 - 000207 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 000208 Date of Discharge: 010327 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00869

    Original file (ND03-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “On November 19, 1998 I was discharged from the U.S. Navy with a General under Honorable Conditions Discharge. 981026: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.