Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00589
Original file (ND01-00589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ABEAR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00589

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010329, 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 010808. 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. Request my type of discharge other than Honorable be reviewed and upgraded to Honorable. I was young and immature at the time. I have owed my own business for the past ten years and have a much better perspective on life and responsibilities now.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated March 19, 2001
Character reference dated February 28, 2001
Character reference dated March 9, 2001
         

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     860808 - 861007  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 861008               Date of Discharge: 880817

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: ABEAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.30 (2)    Behavior: 3.70 (2)                OTA: 3.40

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 88

 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 :

880325:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 25Mar88.

880424:  Applicant declared a deserter.

 880621:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1744, 21Jun88 (88 days/apprehended).
880709:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Unauthorized absence 070, 25Mar88 to 1744, 21Jun88 (88 days/apprehended).
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $400.00, confined for 30 days (7 days administrative credit ordered), reduction to ABEAR.
         CA action 880710: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

880709:  Applicant to confinement.

880725:  Applicant released from confinement and restored to full duty.

880722:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
880722:          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.
880725:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

880731:  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 880817 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).

 The applicant’s issue states: “Request my type of discharge other than Honorable be reviewed and upgraded to Honorable. I was young and immature at the time. I have owed my own business for the past ten years and have a much better perspective on life and responsibilities now.” The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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 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 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01201

    Original file (ND02-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01201 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020820, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. discharge. Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00564

    Original file (ND03-00564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of the application.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Record of birth Certificate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00906

    Original file (ND00-00906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00906 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000712, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant could have received a characterization of other than honorable, but instead, the ADB and Commanding Officer granted leniency and recommended a general discharge. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00086

    Original file (ND00-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It does not, however, change anything about the fact that the applicant had 4 NJPs, 2 retention warnings, was declared a deserter and was discharged from the Navy in absentia. The characterization is based on his time while in the service, which was served under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00658

    Original file (ND00-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Harnett County dated March 6, 1997 Letter from Greenhouse Run-A-Way Shelter Sumter County dated March 4, 1998 Character reference dated May 19, 2000 Character reference from USAF, Major, Ret. Even though the applicant states that his civilian convictions have been dismissed, the applicant still committed a serious offense by violating UCMJ Article 112A for wrongful use of a controlled substance and violation of UCMJ Article 128 for assault. In issue 3, the applicant’s representative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00079

    Original file (ND00-00079.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [A93.08] Once again, as I've listed above, the death of my mother was impairing any clear thought process.5. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.In response to applicant’s issues 4 and 5, while the Board sympathizes with the applicant, the loss of his mother does not exculpate the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00005

    Original file (ND04-00005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00005 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030926. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00021

    Original file (ND99-00021.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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board found these issues to be without merit. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00689

    Original file (ND02-00689.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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 861224 - 870211 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870212 Date of Discharge: 880919 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00487

    Original file (ND99-00487.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920708: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.920709: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.920723: Applicant waived his right to an Administrative Discharge Board and representation at the board and to make a...