Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00507
Original file (ND01-00507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMSAA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00507

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to: “respectfully request to have R.E. code upgraded.” 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 020221. 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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

Here are a few reasons why I wish to have my discharge upgraded.
1. I was slapped in the face by an E-4 in front of my division chief and my chief said nothing. 2. There was a panel on the aircraft that was missing fasteners. Eight people were equally at fault but I was the only one punished for it. 3. I was a hard worker and I earned my plane captain qualification before most of the people that were there before me. 4. I was a proud sailor and loved doing my job and serving my country.
5. I feel that being discharged has taught me a valuable lesson and has forced me to mature a lot more.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Character reference from applicant's father dated August 16, 2000
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated March 2, 2001
Ninety-four pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980331 - 980517  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980518               Date of Discharge: 000519

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11 GED           AFQT: 59

 Highest Rate: AMSAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000204:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107, violation of UCMJ, Article 108.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
000501:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91, violation of UCMJ, Article 108. Award: Forfeiture of $563 per month for 1 month, restriction for 45 days, reduction to AMSAA. No indication of appeal in the record.
000519:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 000519 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 first and second issues describe undocumented incidents of the applicant’s service. They did not form the basis for separation. The reason for separation is a pattern of misconduct. The applicant did not provide documentation to fully explain the relevance of these issues in the context of the propriety or equity of the discharge. Accordingly the Board found these issues non decisional and relief is denied.

The applicant’s third and fourth issues state: “I was a hard worker and I earned my plane captain qualification before most of the people that were there before me.” And “I was a proud sailor and loved doing my job and serving my country.” The applicant’s overall performance was considered in the assignment of the discharge. The basis for the applicant’s discharge was a pattern of misconduct established by his two NJP convictions. Both NJP’s included violations of the UCMJ categorized as serious military offenses. A complete chronology of the applicant’s service could not be constructed due to the fact that the applicant’s discharge package was missing. Therefore, the Board assumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. Accordingly, the negative aspects of the applicant’s service outweighed the positive contributions he made. Based on the applicant’s service record and all supplemental documentation provided that pertain to this case the discharge was determined to be proper and equitable. Relief is not warranted.

 The applicant’s fifth issue states: “I feel that being discharged has taught me a valuable lesson and has forced me to mature a lot more.” Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. 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 conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. Therefore, relief is denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Pers-814, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055. A less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is not, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can normally be done during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is denied.

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. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support his petition for discharge upgrade at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00626

    Original file (ND02-00626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Re: Request Discharge Review Attn: To Whomever It May ConcernI am writing this letter respectfully requesting that my discharge of general under honorable conditions be reviewed and changed to an honorable discharge. No indication of appeal in the record.000928: Applicant found fit for confinement.010725: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.Discharge package missing from service record. There is no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01008

    Original file (ND03-01008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01008 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’s conduct and proficiency markings, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his misconduct, and fall below that required for an honorable characterization of service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01129

    Original file (ND99-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980924: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) on 2 April 1998, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 87 (Missing Movement) on 18 June 1998, and Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) on 19 September 1998.980924: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00288

    Original file (ND02-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00288 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Board found that the applicant’s medical care received during his tour on active duty and the applicant’s medical condition do not mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. The applicant’s character notwithstanding his unauthorized absences and personality...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00685

    Original file (ND00-00685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00685 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.990729: DD Form 214: Discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.Discharge package missing. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01410

    Original file (ND03-01410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I felt that the Navy had let me down I realized that it was wrong and I hated the Navy and their ways after that day I wanted out and I felt to just get out I would just go UA for a while and they would let me go. I swear to you she did push me and I can’t believe how they handled it and all I want to do is go back into time and do things different, but I can’t so I went a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00876

    Original file (ND04-00876.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I would like for my military records be reviewed to the times and reasons why I was given this discharge.” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00492

    Original file (ND00-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The first job was a security job with Royal Guard Security. The Board found that the applicant’s misconduct was significant and warranted an other than honorable discharge. In addition, the applicant was only 9 months out of the service when he submitted his application.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00501

    Original file (ND99-00501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board has to presume regularity in the conduct of government affairs. The applicant also did not provide any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00166

    Original file (ND03-00166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00166 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I know that my records will be reviewed carefully to determine whether my request will be granted or denied.