Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00814
Original file (ND00-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RM3, USN
Docket No. ND00-00814

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000613 requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS as his 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. (DAV ISSUES) Since discharge the FSM has show himself to be a good citizen, and has worked as a security officer at the United Nations. In addition the FSM has submitted into the record statements from co-workers and friends attesting to his outstanding character and professionalism.

2. (DAV ISSUES) It is readily apparent that the FSM has become a solid member of his community, and by his own statement is apologetic for his past indiscretion, and seeks equitable relief from the Board in the form of an upgrade of his discharge.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Applicant's letters (5pgs) and (4pgs)
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Substance Abuse Reference Letter
Character Reference Letter
Letter of Recommendation
Employment Reference Letters (2)
Copy of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report (2pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        841015 - 881214  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     840120 - 841014  COG
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900329 - 900905  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900907               Date of Discharge: 940527

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 77

 Highest Rate: RM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.88 (5)    Behavior: 3.88 (5)                OTA: 3.92

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, Expert Pistol Shot Medal, Expert Rifleman Medal, JUMA, NAVY"E"RIBBON, MUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 39

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 :

930311:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failed to obey a order issued by Lt V_____, to report to Naval Special Warfare Unit Eight for Pre-Deployment Briefing prior to travel to Peru in support of Operation Support Justice.
         Award: Reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

931022:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 0700, 931006 thru 1200 931011, violation of UCMJ Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 0730 931019 thru 1415 931020, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship's movement on or about 931008, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order by absenting himself from appointed place of duty.
         Award: Reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

931026:  NAVDRUGLAB JACKSONVILLE urinalysis report indicates applicant tested positive for cocaine.

940107:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by non-judicial punishments by punishments under the UCMJ in current enlistment; misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by unit urinalysis by Unit Four on 931011; and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by missing movement in non-judicial punishments conviction on 931022.
940218:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
940218:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant has committed misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to commission serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions.

940428:  Commanding officer concurred with the Board's recommended to discharge applicant general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to drug abuse, and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940512:  BUPERS directed the applicant's 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 940527 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 first issue states: “(DAV ISSUES) Since discharge the FSM has show himself to be a good citizen, and has worked as a security officer at the United Nations. In addition the FSM has submitted into the record statements from co-workers and friends attesting to his outstanding character and professionalism.” The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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. In this case, the NDRB did not find the applicant’s post service did not warrant an upgrade from General (Under Honorable Conditions) to Honorable.
Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states: “(DAV ISSUES) It is readily apparent that the FSM has become a solid member of his community, and by his own statement is apologetic for his past indiscretion, and seeks equitable relief from the Board in the form of an upgrade of his discharge.” Although the applicant is apologetic for his misconduct, he did not provide substantial documentation such as drug tests, volunteer and community service, or educational pursuits for the Board to upgrade the discharge. The Board found that the discharge- General (Under Honorable Conditions)- accurately represents the applicant’s service. Relief is not warranted.
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 highly recommended.


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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00246

    Original file (ND00-00246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930804: USS AUSTIN (LPD-4) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Relief not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “(DAV's Issue) The FSM is contending the discharge General, Under Honorable Conditions is inequitable due to an injury incurred while on active duty. The names,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00500

    Original file (ND99-00500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991213. Specifically, the Former Service Member (FSM) is seeking an upgrade inhis discharge from Other Than Honorable (OTH) to Honorable or General, Under Honorable Conditions.The FSM contends his discharge was not due to his conduct. Relief not warranted.The applicant’s third issue, stated by the DAV, contends the applicant was discharged due to a miscommunication between himself and other personnel rather than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01473

    Original file (ND03-01473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSN, USN Docket No. ND03-01473 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030912. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE code for reenlistment.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00393

    Original file (ND03-00393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 950713: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, a pattern of misconduct, and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, and that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00750

    Original file (ND02-00750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00750 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020502, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board 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 contentions as set forth by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00771

    Original file (ND01-00771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00771 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FMS) 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 not the contentions as set forth on the application by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00175

    Original file (ND00-00175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960624: 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.960628: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01010

    Original file (ND01-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking the Review Board with all due respect to review my discharge for a possible upgrade. Respectfully C_ L. H_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Trident Technical College ltr (Part-Time Students' Dean's List) of Feb 27, 2001Letter of Employment, Coburg Diary, dtd Mar 5, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00459

    Original file (ND00-00459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    911127: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Consumed alcoholic beverage while under the age of twenty-one and incapacitated for proper performance of duty. 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 appreciates that the applicant realizes that going on unauthorized absence was wrong and that he regrets...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00286

    Original file (ND02-00286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 at the time of issue. Commanding Officer's determination is to process member for separation as he shows no potential for further naval service.940517: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...