Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00620
Original file (ND01-00620.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GSMFR, USN
Docket No. 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. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. To The Board Of Reviews.
I would first like to state that I have always wanted to be a part of the United States Navy. I even turned down a scholarship to Northwestern University.
I feel that the discharge given me is unfair and unjust do to the cause of my dismissal. It is unjust because first of all, when I enlisted I requested an office rate or related rates. This was not available at the time, due to this fact I opted to take the GSM rate with the knowledge that I would be switched to the rate that I opted for when I enlisted.
I was not dismissed, I requested to be discharged. It is also unfair do to the fact that I requested to be discharged because I was in a rate that I could not perform. I tried to learn my rate by asking for help from fellow members and officials. I also did this by staying after duty hours attempting to get someone to assist me, but I got no response.
The third reason is I was placed in food service which I had no knowledge of, but with the help of others I was able to perform the job with honors and recommendations.
The fourth reason is upon my dismissal, looking at my DD-214. I realized that my narrative reason for separation was written as pattern of misconduct, which is totally unjust, this does not apply to me whatsoever, neither does the re-entry code (RE-4).
I have added with my above statement, some of my citations in and out of the military. Please give this your full attention and consideration, because this is very vital to my livelihood and me as a person. Thank you very much for reading and considering my request. Sincerely,
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to Commanding Officer dated March 10, 1999
Copy of certificate dated March 19, 1997
Copy of certificate of completion dated June 1992
Copy of certificate of merit dated June 24, 1997
Copy of certificate of outstanding academic achievement dated 1997
Copy of citation of honor dated June 3, 1997
Copy of certificate of appreciation dated August 20 -27
Copy of distinguished military graduate dated November 20, 1997 and October 14, 1997
Copy of honor roll certificate dated April 11, 1997

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970319 - 970714  COG
j
 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970715                        Date of Discharge: 990326

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 55

 Highest Rate: GSMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: BER

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980416:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Fleeing the scene of an accident, violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Damage to government properly, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation.
         Award: Restriction for 60 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
980416:  Retention Warning: No further information found in service record. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 18Mar99.

 981210:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Disobeying a lawful order, disrespect to a senior petty officer. Knowing of a crime committed and not reporting it.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.
990204:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault consummated by battery on 2300, 31Jan99
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to GSMFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
990312:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.
990312:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
990318:  Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990326 general (under 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).

In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined that whether the applicant received the rating that he desired or not is irrelevant to his discharge. The applicant violated five articles of the UCMJ, three of which could have resulted in a punitive discharge. The Board recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging to both the Sailor and his family members. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and make the sacrifices required to serve their country. It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well, and therefore, earn their honorable discharges. The applicant's service is accurately characterized as having been performed under honorable conditions (General). In addition, the applicant does not qualify for an Uncharacterized/Entry Level Separation since he had more than six months active service. Relief is not warranted.

 The Board, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The summary of service clearly documents a pattern of misconduct for which the applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

 The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. 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. 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, is considered. The applicant did not provide any documentation of his post-service . The applicant should have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted.

He is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Relief denied.

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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00601

    Original file (ND01-00601.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Relief based on this issue is denied. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00107

    Original file (ND00-00107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00107 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991027, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I have also had numerous treatments for alcoholism, in the service and since being separated. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Illinois Treatment Verification Applicant's...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00507

    Original file (ND01-00507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • 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 | ND02-00073

    Original file (ND02-00073.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).The NDRB notified the applicant in a letter dated 020220 that the discharge package was not available, and advised the applicant that his case would be held for thirty days to allow him to provide discharge documentation. The applicant did not provide the Board with discharge documentation or post service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00495

    Original file (ND99-00495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of charge sheet dated 4 March 1998 Statement from applicant Letter from Department of Treasury to the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00378

    Original file (ND03-00378.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970912 - 980623 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 980624 Date of Discharge: 010802 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 01 08 Inactive: None No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00284

    Original file (ND02-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submit this application for a change in my discharge. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Fifty-five pages from applicant's service record 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: 960522 Date of Discharge: 980729 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00699

    Original file (ND00-00699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION after this occurred I then got dressed and went to the quarter masters desk and asked them to call base security. The NDRB found this issue non decisional.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01065

    Original file (ND02-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Restriction for 45 days. 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).A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before...