Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00862
Original file (ND00-00862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BTFA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00862

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000711, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010125. 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

 1. My discharge was given unfairly after I served in the Persian Gulf War. I was very close to completion of my enlistment term of 4 years. I was placed on restriction because of arriving late to Muster to quarters the morning after the 4 th of July after Liberty in Baltimore, Md. After missing one sign-in- on a restriction sheet, every hour on the hour I was written up and discharged from the service. I was accepted I 1988 by the Navy under a waiver. I did the best to my ability to uphold my duty to the end, even considering my prior civilian records, I never gave up. I beg your deepest and serious consideration to my request/appeal for up grading my discharge to honorable. The up grade would mean so very much to my family and I. Thanks for your time and consideration.

 Documentation
Only the applicant's military service and medical records were considered, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880503 - 880519  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880520               Date of Discharge: 910910

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 03 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: BTFA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.06 (3)    Behavior: 3.0 (3)                 OTA: 3.06

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Navy "E" Ribbon, HSM, SSDR, NDSM, AWASM(w/Star)

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 :

881007:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: forging a civilian clothes chit.
         Award: Forfeiture of $120 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
890510:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): unauthorized absence from place of duty and unauthorized absence from unit.
         Award: Correctional custody for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

890512:  Retention Warning from USS PENSACOLA: Advised of deficiency (while assigned as a mess cook from 27 Jan 89 to 30 Apr89, was much less than average, had difficulties in completing assigned work without supervision, had a difficult time getting himself to an assigned duty on time, went to CO's NJP on 10 May 89 for charges of leaving an appointed duty and not returning for work for 17 hours (UA)), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890621:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: wrongful use of a control substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $349 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
900202:  Retention Warning from USS PENSACOLA: Advised of deficiency (being late for quarters approximately 1 hour & 55 minutes), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning

900202:  Unauthorized absence from 0730, 2 Feb 90. Intentions unknown.

900203:  Surrendered on board USS PENSACOLA, 0730, 3 Feb 90. On unauthorized absence for about 24 hours.

 900301:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: assault.
         Award: Extra duty for 20 days, reduction to E-1 (RIR suspended for 6mos). No indication of appeal in the record.

 900301:  Retention Warning from USS PENSACOLA: Advised of deficiency (assault), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning

900313:  Retention Warning from USS PENSACOLA: Advised of deficiency (restricted from all facilities that dispense alcoholic beverages onboard NAB Little Creek until 10 Aug 90 due to incident including fighting 10 Feb 90), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning

900517:  Punishment of RIR to E-1 from CO's NJP of 90Mar0l vacated this date due to continued misconduct.

900517:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days and extra duty for 10 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900519:  Retention Warning from USS PENSACOLA: Advised of deficiency (to be on time and at place of duty, to obey all orders and regulations), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning

910808:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: failure to obey lawful order.
Award: Restriction and extra duty for 10 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
910812:  CO, USS PENSACOLA 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 all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.

910812:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. Applicant did not object to the separation.
910827:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

910904:  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 910910 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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: “My discharge was given unfairly after I served in the Persian Gulf War. I was very close to completion of my enlistment term of 4 years. I was placed on restriction because of arriving late to Muster to quarters the morning after the 4 th of July after Liberty in Baltimore, Md. After missing one sign-in- on a restriction sheet, every hour on the hour I was written up and discharged from the service.” The NDRB found this issue without merit. The applicant’s service record shows a pattern of five violations of the UCMJ over his enlistment. The Board found the other than honorable discharge accurately characterized the applicant’s service. Relief is not warranted.

 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. The applicant provided no post service documentation for the Board’s consideration. 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, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00471

    Original file (MD00-00471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant, dated February 3, 2000 Character reference from manager of Pep Boys Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC 840820 - 880712 HON Inactive: USMCR(J) 831031 - 840819 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880713 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00011

    Original file (ND01-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It doesn't get you nowhere.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. Regret and remorse alone are no basis upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01347

    Original file (ND03-01347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01347 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030808. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2: (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01098

    Original file (ND99-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920717: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 2 days, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order. 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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant’s Commanding Officer was within his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00163

    Original file (ND01-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00163 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 0730, 12Jul90 to 0730, 13Jul90 (1 day). Accordingly, I recommend administrative separation under other than honorable conditions.920106: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00222

    Original file (ND00-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00222 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01304

    Original file (ND03-01304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :890626: Applicant to active duty for 48 months under the TAR Enlistment Program.900517: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence on 0515, 900424 to 0540, 900425 (1 day), (2) Unauthorized absence from 0500, 900503 to 1419, 900505 (2 days). No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00364

    Original file (ND00-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although many mistakes were made during my enlistment from 1988-1991, I feel that overall my time served in the U.S. Navy is deserving of an honorable discharge.In 1989 I attended and completed search and rescue surface swimmer training in San Diego, California. 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 determined this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00258

    Original file (ND03-00258.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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...