Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00451
Original file (ND01-00451.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMSAR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00451

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed Vets Center as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010829. 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/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Sm states that in his records. There is only one Captains mast for being AWOL. The reasoning was for personnel reason that he made a mistake. Sm requested leave to take care of personnel business and was denied. The restrictions of 45 days extra duty 45 days restriction, half a month pay times two, reduced to the lowest rank. Sm was never allowed to full fill his contractual agreement due to A school paper shuffle. Sm requested to be allowed in the service and was denied. Sm reports that he was pushed from one command to the next and orders changed that never allowed him to do the job he enlisted for. Sm request that a full investigation into his case be done. He believes the evidence will prove that he was at the very least a solid sailor. Sm went AWOL because he was paying for a child (LES) that was not his and when requested to be allowed to go to court as requested by his state he kept getting refused. Sm knows this is wrong but felt there was no other choice at that time. Sm does agree that it was wrong. Requested that you look into his records and request and upgrade deserving of an honorable discharge. During the sm's tour he received armed forces service medal and ribbon, Armed forces expeditionary ribbon and medal, NATO medal and ribbon, Sea service deployment ribbon. There is more evidence that is in the SM records that he does not have access too.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, partial discharge package missing, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     951215 - 951218  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951219               Date of Discharge: 970620

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: AMSAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFSM, AFEM, NM, SSDR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 53

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960626:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of UCMJ Article 86: (2 Specs), Spec 1: Absence without leave on 960429; Spec 2 : UA 960520-960523 (3 days/S).
         Award: Forfeiture of $203.00 per month for 1 month, restriction for 14 days (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970530:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (6 Specs), Spec 1: UA from 970225-970226; Spec 2: UA 0630-0650, 970227; Spec 3: UA 0630-0736, 970306; Spec 4: UA 0630-0650, 970307; Spec 5: UA 0630-0711, 970313; Spec 6: UA 970401-970521 (50days/A); violation of UCMJ Article 90: Failure to obey order of a Superior Officer.
Award: Forfeiture of $450.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
970610:  COMCRUDESGRU TWELVE recommended 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 970620 under other than 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 applicant’s issue states: “Sm states that in his records there is only one Captains mast for being awol. The reasoning was for personnel reason that he made a mistake. Sm requested leave to take care of personnel business and was denied. The restrictions of 45 days extra duty 45 days restriction, half a month pay times two, reduced to the lowest rank.” The NDRB found the applicant was found guilty at NJP on two separate occasions for committing serious offenses under the UCMJ. The Board found no merit in this issue that he had only one NJP. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s issue also states: “Sm was never allowed to full fill his contractual agreement due to A school paper shuffle. Sm requested to be allowed in the service and was denied. Sm reports that he was pushed from one command to the next and orders changed that never allowed him to do the job he enlisted for. Sm request that a full investigation into his case be done.” The NDRB is chartered to review the discharge of a former member for propriety and equity. The applicant was not allowed to fulfill his contractual agreement because of the misconduct he committed and not a paper work shuffle. The Board also discovered that the applicant voluntarily changed his rating from AMH to AMS on 950215. The applicant was denied reentry into the service because of the type discharge he received. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The applicant’s issue states: “He believes the evidence will prove that he was at the very least a solid sailor. Sm went AWOL because he was paying for a child (LES) that was not his and when requested to be allowed to go to court as requested by his state he kept getting refused. Sm knows this is wrong but felt there was no other choice at that time. Sm does agree that it was wrong. Requested that you look into his records and request and upgrade deserving of an honorable discharge.” The NDRB does not agree with the applicant’s statement that he was a “solid sailor,” while on active duty. Although there were no performance marks found in the applicant’s service record, in the short time he served on active duty, the applicant was found guilty at NJP on two separate occasions, for serious violations of the UCMJ. The record is devoid of anything that would characterize his service as anything besides Other Than Honorable. The applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The applicant’s issue states: “During the Sm's tour he received armed forces service medal and ribbon, Armed forces expeditionary ribbon and medal, NATO medal and ribbon, Sea service deployment ribbon.” The Board reviewed the positive aspects of the applicant’s service and found that his misconduct overshadowed any positive contributions he may have made. Relief is denied.
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 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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00077

    Original file (ND99-00077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) As the documentary evidence of record supports, this former member opines that his post service conduct had been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board's clemency relief as authorized under provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970620 general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01050

    Original file (ND01-01050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01050 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010807, 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: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990630 - 990706 COG Period of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00631

    Original file (ND02-00631.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.870629: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.870707: CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Relief...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00275

    Original file (ND01-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Transitional Living Communities dated October 31, 2000 Copy of Big Book Study Relapse Prevention log sheet for applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880718 - 880727 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880728 Date of Discharge: 900813...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00578

    Original file (ND03-00578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to “orderly conduct either or.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00163

    Original file (ND01-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00163 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 0730, 12Jul90 to 0730, 13Jul90 (1 day). Accordingly, I recommend administrative separation under other than honorable conditions.920106: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00228

    Original file (ND01-00228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Appealed denied (910701)911204: Punishment of reduction in rate to E-2 suspended at CO's NJP of 910612 vacated due to continued misconduct. The applicant failed to provide any documentation to support his request for an upgrade to the discharge based on post service accomplishments.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00145

    Original file (ND04-00145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 890223 - 940906 COG Active:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00114

    Original file (MD01-00114.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00114 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001030, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. In the applicant’s issues 1 through 3, the Board found that although the applicant may have gotten a divorce, straightened out his financial problems and went back to school, this was not enough to upgrade his discharge to honorable. At this time, the applicant has not provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00504

    Original file (ND04-00504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “Dear Chairperson:After a 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 evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from October 1, 1996 to November 24, 1998 at which time he was discharged...