Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00071
Original file (ND01-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00071

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001017, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed Missouri Veterans Commission as the 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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Statement from applicant
Copy of DD Form 214
Employment record for past five years
Dissolution of marriage dated August 30, 1991

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     861201 - 861217  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 861218               Date of Discharge: 900831

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: FCSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.10 (4)    Behavior: 3.08 (5)                OTA: 3.25

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 44

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 :

870611:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1130, 1May87 to 1100, 5May87 (3 days/surrendered).
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 8 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
871008:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failed to go to appointed place of duty on 25Aug87, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on 25Aug87, violation of UCMJ, Article 91:Failed to obey lawful orders on 9Sep87.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
871008:  Retention Warning from Service School Command, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL: Advised of deficiency (Failure to abide by the rules and regulations of the U.S. Navy and Uniform Code of Military Justice, as evidenced by your NJP on 8Oct87.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

871124:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Dishonorable failure to pay just debt. [Extracted from CO's message dated 24 August 1990.]

890427:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0800, 30Dec88 to 1030, 3Jan89 (4 days/apprehended), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Miss movement through design on 30Dec88.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
891013:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0645, 8Oct89 to 1145, 9Oct89 (1 day/surrendered).
         Award: Extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900727:  Applicant declared a deserter.

 900822:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 85: Unauthorized absence with intent to remain away permanently on 0630, 26Jun90 to 1610, 1Aug90 (36 days/apprehended).
         Award: Forfeiture of $405 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SA. No indication of appeal in the record.
900824:  USS GUADALCANAL (LPH 7) 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 all punishments under the UCMJ. [Extracted from CO's message dated 24 August 1990.]
900824:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. [Extracted from CO's message dated 24 August 1990.]
900824:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900828:  CNMPC 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 900831 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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. 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, is considered. The applicant provided one letter from his employer and a court document as documentation of his post-service. The applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, more employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01073

    Original file (ND02-01073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880220 - 880831 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880901 Date of Discharge: 901127 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 02 27 Inactive: None No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00089

    Original file (ND00-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 21 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 30 Highest Rate: FN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.24 (5) Behavior: 3.20 (5) OTA: 3.20 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR(2), CGSOR Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00430

    Original file (ND01-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00430 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010223, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant’s first issue states: “(Equity Issue) This former member avers that his alcohol dependence contributed to and sufficiently extenuated his misconduct of record to warrant upgrade of his characterization of service.” Based on the applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00430

    Original file (ND00-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION This was unjust & unfair that only two people went to Captains Mast instead of everyone you bought a meter but didn't admit to paying for it I record was flawless until the USS FORRESTAL.” The NDRB considered this issue and found that it was one of three NJP’s the applicant was found guilty for in his enlistment. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00752

    Original file (ND03-00752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00752 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030328. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004

    Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00128

    Original file (ND00-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900412: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions and further recommended that the discharge not be suspended. Accordingly, I concur with the Board's recommendation that ABFAA (Applicant) be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00408

    Original file (ND02-00408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00408 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.900830: Commander, Submarine Squadron 10, notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00739

    Original file (ND99-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from USS PREBLE (DDG 46): Advised of deficiency (Your conviction of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, Article 123: Forgery, and Article 134: False official pass offenses), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00238

    Original file (ND00-00238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) His violation of the UCMJ notwithstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service record is sufficient to warrant a fully honorable discharge.2. (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C.,enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances...