Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00070
Original file (ND01-00070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SA, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00070

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001017, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 010329. 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 (verbatim)

1. The reason I think I should have my Discharge upgraded is that during the time of of my enlistment I was very young, niave and foolish. In the short time that I served in the U.S. Navy I was proud to wear the uniform. Upon completion of bootcamp I was 1 of only five in my company upgraded to E-2 for being outstanding recruit. I hope that my actions leading to my civilian conviction which ultimately resulted in my discharge from the Navy will not be the only basis for your consideration of my request for an upgraded discharge to General under honorable conditions. Thank you.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
One page from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 841023                        Date of Discharge: 870717

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 07 07         (Does not exclude time lost)
          Inactive: 00 01 27

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 8
Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 49

 Highest Rate: SA
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                           Behavior: NOB             OTA: NOB
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 667

 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. Discharged in absentia.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

841211:  Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.

850905:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications):
          Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 1Jul85 to 1929, 6Jul85 (5 days/surrendered).
          Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 1230, 15Jul85 to 1215, 14Aug85 (29 days/surrendered).
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specifications):
          Specification 1: Unauthorized use of another's identification card on 6Jul85.
          Specification 2: Breaking restriction on 6Jul85.
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of $250 per month for 2 months, reduction to SR.

851011:  Applicant to unauthorized absence, 0730, 11Oct85.

851016:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1200, 16Oct85 (5 days/surrendered).

851018:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 18Oct85.

851119:  Applicant declared a deserter.

860310:  Civil Conviction: Superior Court of California, County of Riverside for violation of 459 PC, first degree burglary, three counts, felony ; 594(b) PC, vandalism, ($5,000.00 or more), felony; 459 PC, vehicular burglary, two counts, felony.
 Sentence: Four years at California Youth Authority and restitution of $2,500.00.
870313:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
870313:          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.
870505:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Discharged in absentia.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged in absentia on 870717 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).
In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions .
 Relief denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 7/86, effective
15 Dec 86 until 14 Jun 87), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00127

    Original file (ND99-00127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. No indication of appeal in the record.830721: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Disobeying a lawful order on 30Jun83 and 1Jul83 Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to ENFA. 850525: Applicant to unauthorized absence, 1430, 85May25.850529: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2230, 86May29...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00097

    Original file (ND00-00097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Information given to the discharge review board was wrong. As indicated by the enclosed "Record of unauthorized absence" I received two 2-year sentences. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 870625 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense (A).

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00239

    Original file (MD02-00239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-00239 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, 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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 970213 - 970622 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00442

    Original file (ND00-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-DCFR, USN Docket No. Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 1113, 900705 onboard USS FAIRFAX COUNTY at Little Creek, VA. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910329 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01161

    Original file (ND99-01161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000522. 931201: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 1Dec93.931206: Applicant apprehended by civil authorities and charge with 4 counts of failure to appear (5 days).931217: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your service record and civilian conviction as evidenced by...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00861

    Original file (ND01-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010614, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues I am requesting an upgrade based on the following 1. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 871014 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00002

    Original file (ND00-00002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00414

    Original file (ND04-00414.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Statement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00967

    Original file (ND04-00967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant refused to speak with detailed defense counsel.890906: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval...