Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00489
Original file (ND01-00489.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SMSN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00489

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010303, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293. The applicant notified the NDRB one day prior to his scheduled personal appearance on 011218 that he would be unable to travel to Washington D.C. for the hearing. The Board requested documentation to support a change in hearing due to an unforeseen hardship, and the applicant was given until 020108 to provide related documentation. On 020107 the applicant requested the Board conduct a documentary review.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020130. 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

1. My discharge was inequitable because I firmly believe that had I been a rating that I could have excelled in, none of this would have happened. Unfortunately electronics had slowly eroded away the signalman rating and there were countless numbers of times when there was nothing to do. As a result I had tried, to the best of my knowledge, at least seven times to change my rate, none of which were approved. I am not attempting to make any unnecessary excuses for my actions; however, I feel that had I been given the opportunity to provide the Navy with productive tasks and abilities in a rate which I know I would have been very successful in that I would have given the Navy far more than 100%. I am not trying to separate this as one isolated incident; however, as is noted in previous discharges and evaluations, the willingness, perseverance, professionalism and devotion to duty has always been there in each command.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214 (currently enlistment)
Copy of DD Form 214 (1980-1984)
Copy of DD Form 214 (Army)
Copy of DD Form 214 (1964-1966)
Copy of Enlisted Efficiency Reports dated April 24, 1975, September 20, 1975
Copy of Report of Enlisted Performance Evaluation dated 14Jun80 to 15Aug80, 1Aug81 to 30Sep81, 30Jun81 to 30Jun82, and 1Jul82 to 15Jun83
Copy of letter of appreciation dated January 4, 1978 and November 7, 1985
Copy of certificate dated May 4, 1984
Letter from applicant requesting conversion to documentary review dtd 020107
Education enrolment verification from Valencia Community College dtd 011219

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USNR-R            630112 - 690111  HON
                  USA                       740522 - 780519  HON
                  USN                       800201 - 800515  HON
                  USN                       800516 - 840325  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     790228 - 800131  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 840326               Date of Discharge: 860307

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 39                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11 GED           AFQT: 60

 Highest Rate: SM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.87 (3)    Behavior: 2.67 (3)                OTA: 2.73

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR (2), HSM, NDSM, AFEM, GCM, NUC, VSR, VCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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.
 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

851112:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking words and gestures on 0045 26Oct85; violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on 0045, 26Oct85.
         Award: Forfeiture of one half pay per month for 2 months, reduction to SM3. Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

860114:  Vacate suspended forfeiture and reduction awarded at CO's NJP dated 12Nov85.
860114:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): Disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer on 0345, 6Jan86, (2) Disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer on 0400, 6Jan86; violation of UCMJ Article 92:(1) Wrongfully fail to obey lawful order on 0330 6Jan86, (2) Wrongfully fail to obey lawful order on 0345, 6Jan06; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly conduct on 0315, 6Jan86.
         Award: Forfeiture of $425 per month for 2 months, restriction and reduction to SMSN. No indication of appeal in the record.
860115:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
860124:  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.
860126:  Applicant found not alcohol dependent. [Extracted from CO's message dated 9Feb86.]
860209:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860213:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge 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 860307 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

 Issue 1. The applicant states: “My discharge was inequitable because I firmly believe that had I been a rating that I could have excelled in, none of this would have happened. Unfortunately electronics had slowly eroded away the signalman rating and there were countless numbers of times when there was nothing to do. As a result I had tried, to the best of my knowledge, at least seven times to change my rate, none of which were approved.” The Board disagrees that the applicant’s discharge was inequitable due to his rating assignment. The record shows the applicant was discharged for commission of a serious offense. The applicant’s dissatisfaction with his rating assignment did not mitigate the documented misconduct in his service record. The Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service. Relief is denied.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/84, effective 17 Sep 84 until 15 Dec 85), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 | ND99-00419

    Original file (ND99-00419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980129: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit 0720, 980116 to 1020, 980116. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980706 with a general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge.

  • 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00159

    Original file (ND99-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930824: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed alcohol rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to serious offense, misconduct due to civil conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended separation be suspended for 12 months, discharge general under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01044

    Original file (ND00-01044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONCDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. 880318: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense. 880321: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed discharge under Other Than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00198

    Original file (ND02-00198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on my service record and the significant progress I have made in my life I would like for the board to review case and if possible upgrade my discharge for this is the only part of my life that is missing and that is to say that I served my country Honorably Sincerely, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01096

    Original file (ND02-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 950221 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The official record notes he was charged with murder by civilian authorities, a serious offense for which a punitive discharge and a life sentence is authorized. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01011

    Original file (ND03-01011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01011 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “Dear Board Members,Applicant), the reason I am submitting this letter is I respectfully request to have my discharge from the Naval Service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions upgraded to an Honorable Discharge.I have been in Federal Law Enforcement, as a Police Officer (GS-0083)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01009

    Original file (ND03-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00008

    Original file (ND00-00008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 42 Highest Rate: SHSN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 1.95 (4) Behavior: 2.10 (4) OTA : 2.30 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR Days of Unauthorized Absence: 35 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00201

    Original file (ND02-00201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020815. 950512: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence 0730, 12Mar95 - 1107, 28Mar95 (16 days/apprehended), (2) Unauthorized absence 17Apr95 - 19Apr95 (2 days/apprehended), violation of UCMJ, Article 87 (2 specs): (1) Missing movement through design on 12Mar95, (2) Missing movement through design on 26Mar95, Award: Restriction for 30 days, reduction to ABEAN, oral reprimand. In...