Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00495
Original file (ND01-00495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00495

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010306, 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 010928. 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

1. What happen to me in the U.S. Navy, is something, that I have not forgotten. It has been with me on a daily basis, for seven yrs. I am not guilty, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and with the wrong ship mate. I have never been in any trouble before. I have a clean record.

I would be very grateful, if the board would change my discharge status to honorable, so I can put what happen to me in the past. Sincerely

Applicant marked the block that says: "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found in case folder.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, 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: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921123               Date of Discharge: 940628

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 07 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 38

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.70 (2)    Behavior: 3.60 (2)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

940330:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 81: Conspiracy, violation of UCMJ Article 121: Larceny.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to SA. No indication of appeal in the record.
940330:  Retention Warning from USS TRENTON (LPD 14): Advised of deficiency (Conspiracy and larceny.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940512:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 11Jun94.]

940604:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 11Jun94.]

940605:  USS TRENTON (LPD-14) 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 a commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ.
940605:  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.
940611:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

940620:  BUPERS 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 940628 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: “What happen to me in the U.S. Navy, is something, that I have not forgotten. It has been with me on a daily basis, for seven yrs. I am not guilty, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and with the wrong ship mate. I have never been in any trouble before. I have a clean record. I would be very grateful, if the board would change my discharge status to honorable, so I can put what happen to me in the past.” The Board found the basis for the applicant’s separation was a pattern of NJP’s documented in his service record. On three separate occasions the applicant was found guilty of committing serious offenses. These offenses included, Larceny, Violation of Lawful Orders, and Making a False Official Statement. Accordingly, the Board found the applicant’s issue is without merit. 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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate 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 .

The applicant marked the block that states: "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found in the case folder.






Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01340

    Original file (ND04-01340.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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member1) Joint Meritorious Unit Award citation for April 1988 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870501 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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 evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00455

    Original file (ND04-00455.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. 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 the NDRB. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01065

    Original file (ND01-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01065 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010810, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00158

    Original file (ND04-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends that his discharge was unfair and that he was a “model soldier.” When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable or under honorable conditons. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00359

    Original file (ND01-00359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board will not grant relief concerning this issue. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00771

    Original file (ND01-00771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00771 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FMS) 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, we continue to not the contentions as set forth on the application by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01049

    Original file (ND01-01049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of applicant's Sam's Club membership cardCopy of applicant's Louisiana drivers licenseCopy of applicant's social security card Copy of applicant's birth certificateCopy of applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)Copy of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00909

    Original file (ND01-00909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Four pages from applicant's service record Copy of employee evaluation dated December 9, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900430 - 901021 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 901022...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00658

    Original file (ND04-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION A FEW MONTHS HAD GONE BY AND I TOLD FIRST CLASS T_ THAT I DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH PETTY OFFICER W_. SO I DIDN’T LIKE WHAT HE WAS SAYING TO ME, SO I FINISHED THE JOB AND WENT BACK TO MY DIVISION.