Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00237
Original file (ND01-00237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PHAR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00237

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001220, 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 010601. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. At the time I took actions which resulted in my court martial and eventual other than honorable discharge I believe I was impaired by chronic depression that had been occurring for years. This situation was exacerbated by my feeling at the time that I had no recourse to correct what I saw as a mistake on my part of having enlisted in the navy at all.

2. I believe my above characterization of my mental conditions are supported by the evluations of the psychiatrist and/or psychologist who examined me following my court martial, first in Bahrain then at the Navy Hospital in Bremerton, WA.

3. In addition, I believe that five years is sufficient time to have been stigmatized by having an other than honorable discharge, which may have prevented me from being hired by certain employers. Now that I am married with thoughts of starting a family I would like the opportunity to move ahead without fear of being penalized for my past mistakes.

 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: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940817-941203    HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941204               Date of Discharge: 951109

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 75

 Highest Rate: PHAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 48

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950829:  Medical Evalutaion: Patient underwent psychiatric evaluation at U.S. Naval Hospital Yokosuka, Japan, shortly after arriving in Japan under technical arrest orders stemming from a one month UA period. Patient stated he had taken illegal drugs while UA for the purpose of expediting his separation from the navy. Medical authority diagnosed member as having a personality disorder with poor coping mechanisms and immaturity. Medical authority recommended expeditious administrative separation for unsuitability. LCDR D.H. I____, MC, USNR, Note: Urinalysis results for drugs use were negative [Extracted from CO's message].

950930:  Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 950624-950810 [48days/S], violation of UCMJ Article 115: Malingering.
         Sentenced to forfeiture of $569.60 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-1.
         CA (951008) Approved findings and sentence.

950930:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense evidenced by your summary court martial on 950930, and by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of personality disorder as evidenced by your medical evaluation of 950929, and the undated psychiatric evaluation from Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan [Extracted from CO's message].
950930:          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].

951014:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of personality disorder.

951018:  TPU Puget Sound, WA advised BUPERS that applicant was medivac to NavHosp Bremerton, WA due to his personality disorder and request discharge authority be issued to TPU.

951026:  BUPERS directed the USS INDEPENDENCE to discharge the applicant under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

951121:  BUPERS directed the TPU Puget Sound to discharge the applicant 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 951109 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 the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board found that a medical diagnosis, on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. When reviewing a discharge, the Board does consider the extent to which a medical problem, diagnosed or undiagnosed while on active duty, might effect an applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. The applicant went to a Summary Court Martial and was convicted of unauthorized absence and malingering (in a hostile fire zone). The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder, not chronic depression as he states in issue 1. The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s diagnosis or any medical treatment given to the applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the applicant from his misconduct of record. In fact, the Board sees no connection between the applicant’s medical condition and his misconduct. Relief is not warranted.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. In response to the applicant’s issue 3, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. 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.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00279

    Original file (ND04-00279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Application for VA Education Benefits (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890906 - 890916 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890917 Date of Discharge: 910924 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 00 08 Inactive: None Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00586

    Original file (ND04-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00586 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00673

    Original file (ND04-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, the reason for the discharge be changed to “alcohol abuse,” and “I respectfully request for the Board to take into consideration of changing my re-Entry code based upon my perseverance and dedication to making things right in my life with the Navy.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. However, due to his failure to follow his medically prescribed and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01511

    Original file (ND03-01511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I just personally feel that I should have received my honorable discharge from the military based on my time in service. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade based on this reason.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00025

    Original file (ND04-00025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I asked OS1 O_ who directly heard EN1 F_ grant me liberty to please submit a letter to the Captain and to accompany me to Captains mast as a witness. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600589

    Original file (ND0600589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    040209: Pretrial agreement approved.Applicant from pretrial confinement (56 days).040210: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Did, on or about 030905, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: VF-101, located at Virginia Beach, Virginia, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 031216. Sentence: Confinement for 75 days.040217: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00355

    Original file (ND02-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please reevaluate my discharge.After review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, the FSM request to have his discharge upgraded from General Under Honorable Conditions to one of Honorable.As the FSM service organization, it is our contention that the General discharge awarded to the FSM is unjust due to the untimely persecution of the FSM. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00626

    Original file (ND00-00626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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: “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 29 months of service with no other adverse...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00160

    Original file (ND99-00160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    951213: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 85: Deserter, (1) Specification: Desertion from 950724-951112(111days/A). 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. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00001

    Original file (ND03-00001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Board found no impropriety or inequity regarding the conduct of the Applicant’s special court-martial. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.