Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01052
Original file (ND00-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AZAA, USN
Docket No. ND00-01052

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000918, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Miami, Florida. The applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010301. 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: HONORABLE/ UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. I was retained in the NAVY extra time to be able to receive my G.I. Bill benefits. I did not receive them due to the characterization of the Honorable discharge.

2. I was told I would receive the benefits by the XO of VFA-86 and by a JAG Lawyer from NAS Jacksonville.

3. Discharge needs to be Honorable with a characterization definable as "COG" in order to receive the G.I. Bill Benefits.

4. The JAG, Lt. verified with Dept of Veterans as to the requirements before discharge. The XO was notified, but my discharge paperwork was written incorrectly.

5. Have a Master Chief that will verify all information needed.

6. Please help!

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letters from Department of Veterans Affairs dated January 28, 1999, one undated, March 26, 1999, April 27, 1999, June 22, 2000, June 25, 2000, April 27, 2000
Letter to Department of Veterans Affairs dated March 4, 1999
Letter from applicant to Chief of Naval Operations dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Assistant Special Counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations dated March 25, 1999, May 9, 1999
Letter from applicant to Office of the CNO dated April 20, 1999
Letter to Secretary of the Navy dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Assistant Commander Naval Personnel Command, Personal Readiness and Community Support (NPC-6) dated March 24, 1999
Letter to Secretary of Defense dated March 4, 1999
Letter from applicant to Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Commanding Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron 86 dated March 22, 1999
Letter to Senator dated March 4, 1999
Letter from United States Senator dated March 30, 1999
Letter from United States Senator dated April 26, 1999
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs to United States Senator dated April 1999
Letter to Naval Legal Service Office dated March 4, 1999
Letter to Executive Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter to MMCPO, Strike Fighter Squadron Eight-Six dated March 4, 1999
Letter to Governor of Flordia dated March 4, 1999
Letter from Department of the Veterans' Affairs dated June 22, 1999
Copy of leave and earning statement prepared March 21, 1997
A letter to Governor of Texas, a Senator and Vice President dated March 25, 2000
Letter from United States Senate dated May 16, 2000
Copy of applicant's medical records

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960404 - 960417  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960418               Date of Discharge: 981022

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: AZAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 1.00 (2)                OTA: 2.58

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, BER, AFEM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

HONORABLE/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971118:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 months pay for 1 month, extra duty for 30 days, reduction to AZAA. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
971118:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. [Extracted from CO's letter dated October 22, 1998. No further information found in service record.]

 981022:  Commanding officer recommended discharge honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Enclosure (2) is an Administrative Counseling/Warning Page 13 issued to AZAA (applicant) after he was awarded Non Judicial Punishment on 24 October 1997 for Violation of UCMJ Article 91; Insubordinate Conduct (enclosure (4)). AZAA (applicant) violated the Page 13 during a squadron detachment in August 1998, 10 months later, in which he was insubordinate towards his Leading Petty Officer. AZAA (applicant) has an enlisted performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1997 to 15 January 1998 with a trait of 1.0 in Military Bearing/Character and trait of 1.0 in Teamwork. In view of the aforementioned, AZAA (applicant) has demonstrated he is not capable of continued military service.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (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).

 In response to applicant’s issues 1-6, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). However, 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. No such error or injustice is evident in the applicant’s service record. The applicant was fortunate to receive an honorable discharge vice a general discharge. Relief denied.

 The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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 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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 to Present, Article 1910-156 (formerly 3630300), Separation by Reason of Unsatisfactory Performance.

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 | ND00-00301

    Original file (ND00-00301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 75 Highest Rate: AZ3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.30 (6) Behavior: 2.40 (7) OTA: 3.08 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00492

    Original file (ND02-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00492 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I am requesting my discharge changed to honorable, because I did serve honorably during my time. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990602: NAVPERS 1070/613: Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance and failure to respond within 30 days of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212

    Original file (ND99-01212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212 (4)

    Original file (ND99-01212 (4).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00742

    Original file (ND04-00742.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Plan: Patient will follow-up with LT B_. Plan: Recommended administrative separation by reason of Convenience of the Government due to a mental conditions (Adjustment Disorder) not constituting a physical disability per DOD Instruction 1332.38 and MILPERSMAN 1910-120.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00738

    Original file (ND00-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason shall change to: Secretarial Authority.The applicant’s first issue states: “Over 95% of my service record is honorable and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I received an Honorable discharge and a good conduct medal from my previous command after 4 years of service.” As every enlistment results in a discharge for that period alone, the NDRB found the applicant’s low overall performance, 1.56, and misconduct, violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 107, in his last enlistment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01249

    Original file (ND02-01249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01249 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020904, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A record discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031017. Pt did indicate an understanding of same.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01131

    Original file (MD02-01131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01131 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter to Applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated June 28, 2002 Letter from Applicant, dated May 13, 2002 Discharge certificate, dated May 11, 1999 Thirty pages from...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01144

    Original file (MD02-01144.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01144 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020807, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After my seperation from the Marine Corps I received a letter from Senator W_ explaining his actions. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00627

    Original file (ND04-00627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Suspended punishments: To forfeit 521.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.010906: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, specification: In that Airman Apprentice W_ R_ (Applicant), on active duty, US Navy Strike Fighter Squadron ONE TWO TWO, Lemoore, CA did on or...