Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00346
Original file (ND01-00346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DKSA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00346

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Jackson, TN. The applicant listed Veterans of Foreign Wars as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledge letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington, DC Area. The Naval Discharge Review Board (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 010817. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. We ask that you review the case for propriety and equity and that you change the discharge as requested.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Character Reference Letters (3)
Character/Employment Reference Statement
Character/Employment Recommendation Letter
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)     921030 - 921227  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921228               Date of Discharge: 971114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 10 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (14 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 95

 Highest Rate: DKSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (3)    Behavior: 3.80 (3)                OTA: 3.66 (4.0 evals)
                  2.00 (1)                 1.00 (1)                          1.83 (5.0 evals)
 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM (2), KLM, NUC, SSDR (2), Battle "E", MUA, NDSM, SASMwb*, AFSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

941215:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 10 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

960919:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation - Contributing to under age drinking by wrongfully purchasing alcohol for a minor), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

960919:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation, in that on or about 960712, failed to obey a lawful general regulation to not contribute to under age drinking by wrongfully purchasing one and, of slammer and handed it to a D____ ?___ who was under the age of the legal drinking age in the state of Hawaii.
         Award: Forfeiture of $261.00 pay, reduction to E-2 (suspended for ? months). No indication of appeal in the record.
970428:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence with leave, (3 Specs), Spec 1: Did on or about 0730, 970305, without authority, absent himself from his work center at which he was known and required to be, to wit: Customer SVC Pay Actions, and did so absent til he returned on or about 0900, 970305, Spec 2: Did on or about 0800, 970311, without authority, absent himself from his assigned location to which he was required to be, to wit: CAAC Screening, CAAC BLDG located at NAVSTA PH, Spec 3: Did on or about 0715, 970312, without authority, absent himself from his assigned location to which he was required to be, to wit: Duty Section Muster, ID Card section BLDG 543K PSD PH.
Award: Forfeiture of $235.69 pay, restriction to NAVSTA for 14 days, extra duty for 14 days/MRS DAMO, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
971115:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 0730, 971028 until return 1500, 971029, from PSD PH HI Customer Service for a period of 31 hours and 30 minutes.
         Award: Reprimand (oral); Charge UA to leave; Administrative separation.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971114general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

The Board considered the applicant’s request for a change in his discharge based on the propriety and equity of the discharge. The record shows the applicant received a General discharge for a documented pattern of misconduct that included four NJP’s. The Board noted that two of the NJP’s were for serious military offenses that warrant a punitive discharge at court martial or other than honorable characterization of service. The Board found that the discharge awarded (General, Under Honorable Conditions) was proper and equitable. Relief is not warranted.

 The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant submitted five character references, but did not provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant remains 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 recommended .











Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 “ afls10.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 | ND00-00711

    Original file (ND00-00711.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the applicant's service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation to be considered by the Board. Drinks 12-16 times a month. The applicant is directed to petition the Board of Naval Corrections for relief on this issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00403

    Original file (ND02-00403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSR, USN Docket No. Award: Confinement for 10 days, forfeiture of $563 per month for 1 months, reduction to E-1 and restriction for 20 days.911213: To confinement.911222: From confinement to full duty.920110: Commander, Submarine Group 9 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00230

    Original file (ND01-00230.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. This office, acting as counsel, has reviewed the naval records of the above named applicant and respectfully submits them for consideration in accordance with Department of Defense Directive Number 1332.28 E4.3 EQUITY In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00535

    Original file (ND04-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00535 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19920629 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501169

    Original file (ND0501169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00735

    Original file (ND01-00735.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please allow me to upgrade my discharge like I've stated I've regretted my decision for 8 years. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (2). However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501292

    Original file (ND0501292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief is not warranted.The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed a diagnosed personality disorder (not otherwise specified) and that the command did not follow medical advice. The Applicant was evaluated by a competent medical authority who stated that the Applicant was “considered totally unfit for further shipboard/overseas duty.” Although the Applicant may have been eligible for administrative separation for a medical condition, applicable regulations...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00071

    Original file (ND00-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850830 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00131

    Original file (ND02-00131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00131 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011018, 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:Applicant's letter to the Board dtd 01AUG06 Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00234

    Original file (ND03-00234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was on restriction and told I was going to CCU, but at that point I really couldn’t and didn’t want to. 000316: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 0705 hours, 000315, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Restricted Muster; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by OM2 R_ Z_, to wit: To leave the Polarisville berthing trailer and stay within the...