Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00951
Original file (ND00-00951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND00-00951

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000727, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance discharge review in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010209. 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 four to one that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. (Equity Issue) This former member requests that the Board apply provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure 91), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Three pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880831 - 881113  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881114               Date of Discharge: 890530

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: FR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                           Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA : NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

881115:  Applicant briefed on Navy's policy on drug and alcohol abuse.

 890323:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order by possessing drug paraphernalia on 26Feb89, to wit: seven plastic syringes, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully possess without a prescription a schedule III controlled substance on 26Feb89, to wit: methandrostenolone and testosterone.
         Award: Forfeiture of $349 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
890417:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
890417:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
890420:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): FR (applicant) was disenrolled from MR "A" School due to misconduct. His commission of a serious offense is supported by his violation of Article 92 and 134 (enclosures (3) and (4)). He is not recommended for reenlistment and has no potential for future Naval service. Therefore, it is recommended that FR (applicant) be separated from the Naval service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

890505:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 890530 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 issue states: “(Equity Issue) This former member requests that the Board apply provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure 91), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.” 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 failed to provide any 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 15560A), Change 6, effective
11 Jan 89 until 24 May 89, 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00658

    Original file (ND02-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A personal appearance1 discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030318. His commission of a serious offense is supported by his violation of Article 92 and 134 (enclosure (3) and (4)). 890505: CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00712

    Original file (ND02-00712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00712 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020429, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Please consider my request open-minded because there were more circumstances than are listed on my service records. Violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on another person on 890911.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00288

    Original file (ND01-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910312 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging to both the Sailor and his family members. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00733

    Original file (ND99-00733.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.17C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. 930511: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.930511: Commanding officer recommended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01170

    Original file (ND99-01170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880203 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces Reading Room Washington, D.C. 20310-1809The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01084

    Original file (ND01-01084.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SWCA, USN Docket No. ND01-01084 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010814, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910524 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00426

    Original file (ND99-00426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues (verbatim) (EQUITY ISSUE) His violation of the UCMJ nothwithstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service period is sufficient to warrant separation under honorable condition.2. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces Reading Room Washington, D.C. 20310-1809The names, and votes of the members of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00715

    Original file (ND02-00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950222: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions [Extracted from case file]. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence the Board found, by a vote of 3-0, the Applicant committed misconduct and his service should be characterized as other than honorable. However, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00509

    Original file (ND99-00509.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. After completing 90 days was offered to complete a program and return to active 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 (C and D).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00949

    Original file (ND99-00949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. 900718: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 900731 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission...