Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004
Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STGSR, USN
Docket No. ND00-01004

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010406. 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. " To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." II CORINTHIANS 2:10 & 11

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request an upgrade in my military discharge status from "Other Than Honorable" conditions to an "Honorable" status. I base my request upon my present conduct as a member of my community, my achievements, and my accomplishments since my discharge from the United States Navy. I humbly ask that you consider the transformation that has taken place in me since my discharge and younger days of immaturity.

I was seventeen years old, just seven days out of high school, when my enlistment began. I was the product of an unstable home environment, to say the least, looking for a way out. My hometown recruiter made the United States Navy sound like heaven with one word... travel. This, I had translated into...away. I didn't view my enlistment as a career or educational opportunity; unfortunately, I was still dealing with old ghosts of childhood. Consequently, my conduct and military bearing was not what ft could have been under different circumstances.

Today, however, I rejoice in admitting that my conduct and bearing is that of a happy being. I am a single father to my five-year old daughter and the joy of my life, C_ D_. I possess an insatiable hunger for knowledge as a Plant Science major at Southwestern College in San Diego with plans to earn master degrees in Forestry Ecology and Plant Pathology at the University of California Berkeley. I am a member of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers, Resilient Floor & Decorative Workers Local Union 1399 in San Diego where I am employed as a glazier and loving it! And last but not least, I am an advocate for education in my community, which is plagued with gang violence and troubled youth.

In conclusion, I respectfully request an upgrade of my military discharge to an "Honorable" status based on the reasons aforementioned. My actions as an enlisted man may not have been honorable; however, today my honor has been restored.

" Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O Lord."PSALMS 25:7 Respectfully,

 2. Applicant indicated above requested that Veterans of Foreign Wars act as counsel concerning his application. His records were reviewed on January 11, 2001 and the following comments are hereby submitted.

The applicant initially enlisted in the United States Navy on June 26, 1989. On February 18, 1992 he received an Other Than Honorable discharge. The applicant received non judicial punishment Art 15 on different occasions during the time of active duty. He has provided the board with many letters of recommendations stating examples of his life improving.

We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant's discharge be reviewed for an upgrade to Honorable.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated May 20, 1998
Letter verifying college enrollment since 1995 spring semester
Character reference dated April 1, 1998
Character reference dated April 1, 1998
Character reference dated March 27, 1998
Character reference from a Professor from Southwestern College
Copy of scholarship recommendation dated February 25, 1998
Copy of grade notice for Spring 1998
Copy of certificate for 1997-98 academic year dated May 27, 1998
Copy of certificate for outstanding achievements dated May 21, 1998
Copy of certificate of appreciation dated May 28, 1998 (2 copies)
Copy of certificate of competency dated March 12, 1998 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890223 - 890625  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890626                        Date of Discharge: 920218

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 07 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 66/68

 Highest Rate: STG3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

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 :

900824:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): (1) Absence without leave, to wit: on 2345, 19May90 failed to go to 0000-0400 Bldg 92 Petty Officer of the watch, (2) Absent himself on 1230, 27Jul90 until 0730, 30Jul90 (4 days/surrendered), (3) Absent from 0700-1630, 20Aug90, violation of UCMJ Article 134 (2 specs): Wrongfully communicated a threat on 0700, 21May90, (2) wrongfully communicated a threat on 1400, 21May90.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to STGSN. No indication of appeal in the record.
900824:  Retention Warning from Fleet-Anti Submarine Warfare Training Center: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 86 x 3, 134 x 2 on or about 2345, 19May fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 113: Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout on 1510, 23Nov91, to wit: left post before he was properly relieved.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
920109:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on 0400-0800, 6Dec91, to wit: 0400-0800, Zone 3 Rover watch, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duties in that he negligently failed to update his recall number on 5Dec91.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 10 days, reduction to STGSA. Restriction and extra duty suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
920130:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: U.S. Navy Regulations, dated 14Sep90, by wrongfully carrying a loaded 12 gauge shotgun in a car.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to STGSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
920114:  Fleet Anti-Submarine Welfare Training 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 your three or more punishments under the UCMJ within your current enlistment; and misconduct due to commission of a serious military offense as evidenced by your violations of UCMJ Articles 92 - Failure to obey order, regulation, 113 - Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout, and 134 - Threat, communicating.

920114:          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.
920129:  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.

920213:  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 920218 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 two issues requested an upgrade based on his post service conduct and described some of his accomplishments. While the Board found the applicant’s documentation substantial, the Board did not find post service significant enough to warrant an upgrade to the discharge. It is commendable that the applicant is furthering his education and appears to be respected by the faculty and staff at Southwestern College, but the Board found the applicant’s post service did not warrant an upgrade to the discharge. The record shows the applicant had four NJP’s in his enlistment. His offenses included violation of UCMJ Articles: 134-wrongful communication of a threat, 113, misbehavior of a sentinel, 92, dereliction of duty, and 92, failure to obey a lawful order. All of these offenses are considered serious military offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. The negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweigh the applicant’s post 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, 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00191

    Original file (ND01-00191.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. In response to applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow him to go back to school. There is no requirement or law that...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00699

    Original file (MD99-00699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00699 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990426, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to occupational problem. Applicant informed and understood and agreed to complete enlistment.920608: Applicant’s on base driving privilege suspended for 12 months. This does not change the fact that the Board recognizes the applicant committed misconduct and should be held...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01166

    Original file (ND03-01166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00830

    Original file (ND02-00830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910929 - 910708 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910709 Date of Discharge: 930121 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 01 06 13 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00282

    Original file (ND01-00282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.980522: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: failure to report to place of duty; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: dereliction in the performance of duties; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: incapacitation for performance of duties through wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor.Award: Reduction to E-4 (Suspended). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00720

    Original file (ND02-00720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00720 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020424, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. No indication of appeal in the record.880517: USS JARRETT (FFG 33) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00126

    Original file (ND04-00126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Findings: to Charge I, II, III, IV and specifications thereunder, guilty.Sentence: CHL for 40 days, forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00543

    Original file (ND04-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Within 3-days he realized that he was having the same problem as I had and changed the watch schedule so that he had a day watch and could get more sleep.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600595

    Original file (ND0600595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). It is my deepest desire that these achievements not only reflect well upon me, but also on the Department of the Navy and the values that they stand for.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Journeyman Wireman Diploma, dtd June 1, 2002 Bachelor of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00089

    Original file (ND02-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00089 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011010, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within...