Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00601
Original file (ND01-00601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00601

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010402, 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 011031. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the 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

 1. Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer adverse consequences of a bad discharge.

2. I have been a good citizen since my discharge.

3. My ability to serve was impaired because of family care problems.

4. Personal problems impaired my ability to serve.

5. I faced racial discrimination and that impaired my ability to serve.

6. Medical or physical problems I had impaired my ability to serve.

7. Certain other problems impaired my ability to serve.

8. My discharge was based on many offenses, but they were minor.

9. My command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and give me a bad conduct discharge.

10. I tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, ONLY PARTIAL DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copies of Service Related Documents (80pgs)
Copies of Medical Related Documents (30pgs)
Applicant's Special Request Statement (5pgs)
Character Reference Statements (15)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     980630 - 980716  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980717               Date of Discharge: 990730

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1.50 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 71

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 :

990210:  Applicant declared a deserter on 990209 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0700,990111 from USS DEYO (DD-989).

990326:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 87: (4 Specs), Missing ship movement.
         Award: Forfeiture of $480.00 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
990326:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (By violation of UCMJ Articles, 86 & 87 (Unauthorized absence & Missing Movement) as evidenced by your recent CO's NJP on 990326), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990630:  Punishment of forfeiture of $480.00 pay per month suspended for 6 months at CO's NJP on 990326 vacated due to continued misconduct.

990701:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
         Award: Bread & Water for 3 days, forfeiture of $480.00 per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

990706:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

990716:  Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet authorized 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 990730 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).

 Issue 1. The applicant states “Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer adverse consequences of a bad discharge.” The NDRB did not find an upgrade in discharge is warranted based on the adverse effects of the Other Than Honorable discharge. The Board found the discharge was proper and equitably characterizes the applicant’s service. Relief is denied.

 Issue 2. The applicant states “I have been a good citizen since my discharge.” The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 positive community service, employment history, and a clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 3 thru 7. The applicant states, his service was impaired by family care problems, personal problems, racial discrimination, physical problems, and certain other problems. The applicant’s record is devoid of credible evidence to support this issue and the applicant did not provide documentation to support the issue. The record shows the applicant was found guilty at NJP on two separate occasions and was counseled for his deficiencies in performance and conduct. His offenses included over 70 days of Unauthorized Absence and four specifications of Missing Ship’s Movement in 10 months of active service. The Other Than Honorable discharge accurately describes the applicant’s service to the U.S. Navy. Relief is denied.

Issue 8. The applicant states, “My discharge was based on many offenses, but they were minor.” Although the applicant feels his offenses were “minor”, the record shows that his NJP for Unauthorized Absence over 30 days and Missing Ship’s Movement (four specifications) are serious vilations of the UCMJ, punishable by court martial. Relief based on this issue is denied.

Issue 9. The applicant states, “My command abused its authority when it decided to discharge me and give me a bad conduct discharge.” In review of the applicant’s service record the NDRB found no impropriety or abuse of authority. The record shows the applicant was afforded his due process throughout his enlistment and the discharge proceedings. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 10. the applicant states, “I tried to apply for a compassionate reassignment but was unfairly denied or told to forget it.” There is nothing in the record to support this issue nor did the applicant provide documentary evidence to support this issue. Relief is not warranted.

 The applicant remains 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 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 | 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00773

    Original file (ND01-00773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00773 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). The applicant’s second issue states: “(American Legion's Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00807

    Original file (ND02-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00807 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.000229: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specification), Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Appeal denied 000313.Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of Article 86: Unauthorized Absence from 0700, 000224 to 1600, 000224; and from 0700,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00595

    Original file (ND03-00595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00595 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01018

    Original file (ND00-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the applicant’s issue 6, the Board In the applicant’s issue 8, the Board does not have the authority to grant “clemency.” The Board reviews the propriety (did the USN/USMC follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with the USN/USMC guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge. At this time, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00613

    Original file (ND01-00613.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter from applicant's parents Letter from applicant's mother Letter from applicant to parents Letter from doctor dated September 21, 2000 Forty-one pages from medical records Letter from commanding officer to applicant's parents dated April 24, 2000 Letter from psychologist, undated Comments from the American Legion dated September 21, 2001...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01029

    Original file (ND00-01029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01029 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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. In the applicant’s issue 2, the applicant was retained in the Navy despite his “defective...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01100

    Original file (ND03-01100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable Discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01182

    Original file (ND04-01182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of 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 Letter from Applicant, undated Service Record Documents, annotated by Applicant, 26 Apr 02 (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000929 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00620

    Original file (ND01-00620.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00620 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to left blank. To The Board Of Reviews. 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...