Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00793
Original file (ND00-00793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00793

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000607, 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 010111. 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 (verbatim)

 1. To whom it may concern: As stated on my DD-214 I originally enlisted in the Navy for 4 years on 1-25-88 I completed my original 4 years honorably and then extended my service by 1 year. It was on the fifth year of service that I made choices that regretfully were inappropriate. I was accused of fraternization with a superior. I was an E-4 and he was and E-6, I realize that any relationship was improper and I regret decisions that I made. The Navy was a great experience for me. I learned work ethics and self confidence that I carry with me today. I hope someday to tell my kids and their kids about my stint with the Navy with pride without the stigma of a less than honorable discharge. I appreciate your consideration of my request.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     871125 - 880124  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880125               Date of Discharge: 930114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 11 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: SH3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.72 (5)    Behavior: 3.48 (5)                OTA: 3.64

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR(2), SASM, KLM, NAVY"E"RIBBON, AFEM, NUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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 :

880726:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Violate lawful order on or about 880717.
         Award: Forfeiture of $335.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
910911:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Operate a vehicle while drunk on or about 910813.
         Award: Forfeiture of $481.00 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

910920:  Retention Warning from [USS JASON (AR-8)]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 111: Driving while drunk), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

921202:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit for 1 hour on 921128; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful general regulation, to wit: U.S. Navy Regs, Article 1165, by wrongfully having an unduly familiar relationship with her LPO; violation of UCMJ Article134: Disorderly conduct.
         Award: Forfeiture of $512.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

921209:  USS JASON AR-8 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense as evidenced by three NJP's during this enlistment and violation of a general regulation.

921209:          Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights

921214:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): While SHSN_____(applicant’s) military performance is considered to be outstanding, her personal decision to continue a personal relationship with her LPO is unacceptable. She ignored past counseling sessions and warnings from her chain of command of the consequences that she would face. Her conduct has created an undesirable environment which can not be tolerated. Therefore, I recommend that she be discharged from the Navy under other than honorable conditions.

921228:  BUPERS 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 930114 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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 response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant’s military record and performance were good as evidenced by her enlisted performance evaluation averages. However, her performance does not mitigate the seriousness of the applicant’s violations of the UCMJ’s Articles 92 and 134. The applicant was warned to cease her personal relationship with her LPO and failed to heed these warnings. The Board sees no reason to grant relief concerning this issue.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of her not using alcohol (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is encouraged to continue with her pursuits and is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

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 – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 general 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00366

    Original file (ND04-00366.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00366 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031218. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “I am requesting that my discharge be changed from other than honorable to honorable, please review the enclosed information for this possible discharge status change.I would like to request a review of my Discharge and consideration be given to changing it from Other Than Honorable to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00347

    Original file (ND00-00347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the applicant's service record was reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. I recommended separation from the Naval service with an other than honorable discharge due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by service record entries. "930106: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00108

    Original file (ND99-00108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :880518: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.890209: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobedience of a superior commissioned officer. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 891107 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00430

    Original file (ND00-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00337

    Original file (ND02-00337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).Issue 1: The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 45 months of dedicated service with no other adverse actions. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01340

    Original file (ND03-01340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01340 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030806. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Please upgrade my discharge so that I no longer have to live in shame.Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Statement from Applicant, undatedCopy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00430

    Original file (ND99-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00430 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. SA B____ is an administrative burden to the Navy and should be expeditiously discharged.920811: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00049

    Original file (ND00-00049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of Police Record Check Letter from applicant Employment Reference Letters (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 840705 - 841216 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 841217 Date of Discharge: 861217 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01447

    Original file (ND03-01447.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.910416: USS INGRAHAM (FFG 61) 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 nonjudicial punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.910416: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00967

    Original file (ND02-00967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00967 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020625, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government RE-1. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I then told him that I probably wouldn't have the high school credits to graduate with my class in May of 1992. the recruiter then explained to me that if I really wanted to...