Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00631
Original file (ND01-00631.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00631

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010406, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Subsequent to the application, the applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

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, 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

1. (Equity Issue) This former member opines that marital problems sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant amendment of his discharge to Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation).

2. (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 this application.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from applicant's father dated March 15, 2001
Letter to BCNR from OS1(SW) dated March 9, 2001
 Letter from applicant undated
 Letter from applicant
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
 Sixty-six pages from applicant's service record
Letter from Chief of Police dated May 3, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     991125 - 991207  ELS
                   USNR (DEP)      000207 - 000222  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000223               Date of Discharge: 001026
Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 00 08 04
          Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 10                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: SA
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 73

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

001006:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 19Jul00 to 1330, 30Sep00 (73 days/apprehended).
001006:  A pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700, 19Jul00 to 1330, 30Sep00. The applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

001010:  The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 001026 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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).
Issue 1. The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his marital problem was a factor that contributed to his actions, 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 denied.
Issue 2. The discharge was proper and equitable. 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 relief, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He 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 any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore denied.




Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective
11 Jul 2000 until Present, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days) upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00955

    Original file (ND01-00955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00955 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010723, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. He 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00336

    Original file (ND04-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. E. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01234

    Original file (ND99-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : Discharge package missing from service record.970214: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 14Feb97. No relief warranted based on this issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00600

    Original file (ND01-00600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. No indication of appeal in the record.990804: DD Form 214: Discharged under other than honorable conditions/in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106.Separation package missing from service record. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00077

    Original file (ND03-00077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00388

    Original file (ND03-00388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. ]000727: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106.Separation package missing from service record. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01162

    Original file (ND01-01162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01162 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010905, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :001026: Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Unauthorized absence (UA) from 0700, 17Aug00 to 0845, 25Oct00 (69 days/surrendered).pplicant requested an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00384

    Original file (ND01-00384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00384 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010207, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. After a thorough review of the records, 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, to permit relief, an error or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00033

    Original file (ND03-00033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980407: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980407 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00109

    Original file (ND01-00109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00109 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001031, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My letter of explanation is attached.” 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 of the Armed Forces.