Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00045
Original file (ND01-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00045

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001016, 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 list any 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.









PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I feel my discharge was based on a urinalysis and would not have happened today now that I'm older in age.

2. I feel I was treated unfairly by my superiors and was only six months short of an honorable discharge.

3. I feel my discharge should be upgraded because I served my country during war, with the threat of exposure to toxic chemicals (Persian Gulf War).

4. Commendations and Medals (DD214 Attached)

5. Under current standards, I would not receive the type of discharge I did.

6. I received awards and decorations

7. I received letters of commendations.

8. I had combat service.

9. I was close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge

10. I faced racial discrimination and that impaired my ability to serve.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copies of Traffic Court Receipts (3)
License Citation
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900416 - 900604  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900605               Date of Discharge: 921219

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 15
         Inactive: 00 00 00

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 41

 Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.93 (3)    Behavior: 2.53 (3)                OTA : 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, NUC, MUC, SASM, KLM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 39

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 :

900829:  Retention Warning, despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre-service civil involvement: Mar 90: 2 parking tickets in Detroit, MI; Paid $80.00 fine.

910109:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA 901202-901210 [8days/S], violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship’s movement.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

910208:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Missing ship’s movement and going U/A), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920819:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: UA on or about 0630, 920711 for a period of about 24 days, 4 hours, and 30 minutes; Spec 2: UA on or about 0730, 920816 for a period of about 23 hours, violation of UCMJ Article 87: (2 Specifications), Missing ships movement on 920714 and 920731, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order on or about 920527; violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance (THC) on or about 920527.
         Award: Reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
920831:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to Drug abuse.
920831:          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.
921027:  UA from 921023-921027 [4days/S].

 921103:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct due to Drug abuse and Commission of a serious offense.

921202:  Medical Officer's evaluation found applicant not psychologically or physically dependent on illicit drugs. Applicant found to have mild psychological dependence but not physical dependent of drugs. Applicant declined VA treatment.

921209:  BUPERS 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 921219 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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).

Issue 1. The applicant states his discharge was based on a urinalysis and would not happen today, now that he is older. The Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. The urinalysis testing was within the legal authority of the applicant’s former command and being young and irresponsible is not sufficient justification to warrant relief. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The applicant states he was treated unfairly by his superiors and was only six months short of an Honorable discharge. The Board determined there was no evidence to support the applicant’s claim of being treated unfairly or that he was on track for an Honorable discharge. The applicant received two retention warnings, in his abbreviated career, and violated them both. He was found guilty of unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement, orders violation and use of illegal drugs. This type of behavior does not exemplify Honorable service. His repeated misconduct was a blatant display of total disregard for Navy regulations and his discharge was issued properly and equitably. Relief denied.

Issue 3. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded because he served during the Persian Gulf War. The Board determined that the applicant is not due any special dispensation for serving in the Persian Gulf War. Relief denied.

Issue 4, 6,7, and 8. The Board determined these issues are not decisional issues but are statements of fact and require not further comment. Relief denied.

Issue 5. The applicant states, under current standards, he would not receive the type discharge he now has. The Board disagrees with the applicant. His misconduct continues to be violations of the UCMJ, under today’s directives. There are no changes to Navy regulations that allow unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement, orders violations and drug abuse. Therefore, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Issue 9. The applicant states he was close to finishing his tour and it was unfair to give him a bad discharge. The Board determined the applicant’s misconduct began before the gulf war, in January 1991 and continued until he was discharged in December 1992. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Issue 10. The applicant states he faced racial discrimination, which impaired his ability to serve. The Board determined there is no evidence of racial discrimination in the applicant’s service record, nor did the applicant provide any such documentation to support his allegations. Relief denied.

 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 – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 87, missing ship’s movement and Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.
C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND02-00899

    Original file (ND02-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00899 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020612, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. CA action 921027: Sentence approved and ordered executed.921119: Retention Warning from [USS JOHN F KENNEDY (CV-67)]: Advised of deficiency (Misconduct as evidenced by a Summary Court-Martial on 921014, for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (4 Specifications): Specification 1: Unauthorized absence from 920427 until...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00601

    Original file (ND01-00601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Relief based on this issue is denied. Issue 10. the applicant states, “I tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.” There is nothing in the record to support this issue nor did the applicant provide documentary evidence to support this issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00375

    Original file (ND00-00375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 981103: Memorandum from Command Chaplain stating applicant made a public statement to him claiming he is bisexual.981116: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.981116: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00673

    Original file (ND00-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000428, 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).The applicant’s first issue states: “At the time of my enlistment I was only seventeen years old and not fully prepared for the commitment I...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01023

    Original file (ND02-01023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01023 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.920710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 920526 to 920615 (20 days/S); violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement on 920527. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received...

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00587

    Original file (ND99-00587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00587 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990324, 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).In the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board determined these issues are without merit. He clearly established a pattern of misconduct, in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00465

    Original file (ND04-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “Mitigating Circumstances At this time I am requesting a review of my discharge. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00158

    Original file (ND03-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900316: Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, IL: Advised of deficiency (due to fraudulent entry as evidenced by failure to disclose your pre-service civil involvement – May 89 – burglary, possession of tools used in burglary; was sent to pre-trial intervention program and after completion of the program the charges were dropped), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of...