Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00618
Original file (ND01-00618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SW3, USN
Docket No. ND01-00618

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010404, 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. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area.
Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011018. 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 (verbatim)

1. I served in the U.S. Navy from 9 Jun 1980 to 29 Sept 1986 from 9 June 1980 to 9 Jun 1981 was inactive duty from 9 Jun 1981 to 9 Jun 1986 I received a Honorable Discharge and from 9 Jun 1986 to 29 Sept 1986 I received a other than Honorable Discharge, I like the DD 214 to show my Honorable Discharge.

 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):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     800909 - 810608  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 810609               Date of Discharge: 860929

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 03 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (31 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 41/50

 Highest Rate: SW3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (7)    Behavior: 3.40 (8)                OTA : 3.52

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: BER, MUC

 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 :

820819:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 7Aug82.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month. No indication of appeal in the record.
840422:  Applicant disenrolled from NASAP, facilitator stated he is way beyond their capabilities.
840709:  Evaluation for numerous alcohol related episodes. Imp: Alcohol abuse. Plan: Level II rehabilitation, antabuse 250 mg daily (supervised).
840718:  Applicant to Flight Surgeon from Counseling and Assistance Center for help with his alcohol problems. Clinical impression: Alcoholism. Recommendation: Antabuse 250 mg daily, supervised for 90 days, weekly sessions at CAAC for 13 weeks.

850609:  Extended enlistment for 31 months.

860710:  CAAC found applicant not dependent on alcohol. [Extracted from Commanding Officer's message dated 4Sep86.]

860717:  Applicant's counseling terminated due to the fact that SW3 was drinking alcoholic beverages in a military vehicle and offering it to other class members while on the way to an alcoholic anonymous meeting.

860821:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Fail to obey a lawful general regulation on 15Jul86, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful to a superior petty officer on 15Jul86.
         Award: Forfeiture of $476 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
860821:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
860825:          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.
860904:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

860914:  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 860929 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant's service from 9 June 81 to 9 June 85 (initial enlistment period) was not fully honorable, as that period was marred with one NJP and numerous evaluations for alcohol related episodes. Upon entering a 31 months extension of that enlistment on 9 June 85, your continual involvement with alcohol related incidents, numerous counseling sessions for alcohol consumption, and subsequent NJP action prompted the discharge process . The Other Than Honorable discharge characterization on his DD-214 reflects the quality of the military service he provided to his country during the period from 9 June 1981 to 29 September 1986. Based on his service record and supporting documentation provided by the applicant, his service is accurately characterized as having been performed under Other Than Honorable conditions. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

This review coincides with the expiration of the applicant’s fifteen-year eligibility for NDRB action (29 September 2001). As the applicant did not elect to appear before the Board in a personal appearance hearing, as recommended in NDRB letter ND01-00618/HER dated 9 April 2001, this decision exhausts the applicant’s opportunity for review by the NDRB. The applicant remains eligible to appeal for upgrade to the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560, Change 10/85, effective
16 Dec 85 until 05 Oct 86), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, for failure to obey a lawful regulation, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND99-00945

    Original file (ND99-00945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 22 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 50 Highest Rate: FR Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: NMA Behavior: NMA OTA: NMA Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: 52 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. No...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00629

    Original file (ND99-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason I have for leaving without permission and missing ships movement, was my wife had just had a baby, I was approved for 14 days leave. 860929: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.860929: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00720

    Original file (ND00-00720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from [USS W. S. SIMS {FF-1059}] : Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ, Articles 90, 91, 92, 117 and 134: Drunk and Disorderly), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. SIMS {FF-1059} notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00059

    Original file (ND01-00059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Assessment: ETOH Plan: Return to counseling for re-evaluation 8 hrs.850304: Sick Call: Pt is a 20 year old white male complaint of alcohol ingestion. No indication of appeal in the record.860308: CO, USS HECTOR advised CNMPC that applicant received another NJP and the recommendation for discharge due to misconduct due to Commission of serious offense submitted on 28 Feb 86 is appropriate and that the discharge package be corrected as such and correct the date in the LON, para 7 to show...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00687

    Original file (ND02-00687.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116. Issue 1: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00555

    Original file (ND00-00555.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    840511: Applicant counseled on existing VA-83 instructions in regards to: drug/alcohol abuse, legal consequences of illicit drug/alcohol abuse, urinalysis screening, and results of urinalysis test may be used for all purposes, including disciplinary action and discharge characterization.850321: Applicant referred to CAAC as a result of an alcohol related incident and family violence which occurred on 19Jan85. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00517

    Original file (ND99-00517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 48 Highest Rate: ET3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.60 (3) Behavior: 3.62 (5) OTA : 3.65 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR Days of Unauthorized Absence: 30 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01222

    Original file (ND02-01222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Drug & Alcohol Problems while in the Navy. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 SF 180 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850830 - 851209 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 851210 Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00195

    Original file (ND04-00195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00195 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031117. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00226

    Original file (ND02-00226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 871014 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant did not provide any post service documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.