Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00736
Original file (ND01-00736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00736

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010504, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed Disabled American Veterans as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on an incident of asking to be transferred to my own shop when my Chief P.O didn't send me to my shop, I ask to get out of the squadron. The chits I ran didn't make it pass my Chief and they was not placed in the chit logbook. I asked around about my chits and everyone up my chain of command never heard of the chits. Then I asked to get out of the navy, hoping I could come back in and be sent to a boat. Before I was in 20 division I was in the line division (300), every time I did a daily or turnaround inspection on an aircraft, I was pulled off of it and sent to another bird. So if I did four aircraft in one day and finished about 90% of what had to be done then the person who finished the other 10% would get credit a job that I did some of them got frocked to petty officer. When I asked my CPO & Superior about it, they gave me a run around. It happened so much that I started drinking, because no one would listen to me. After that my time in the line division about the same until I talked to my DIV. O about people taking credit for work that I have done on an aircraft. He talked to everyone down the chain of command from himself. From then on, my chief on down wrote me up for stuff that if someone else in the shop did, they would have gotten in trouble. But they wanted to keep me there because I was doing most of the work load anyway.

2. ( DAV's Issue ) After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions a set forth on the application by the appeallant of an upgrade of his current General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable, and a change of the current RE-4 code to that of RE-2b or greater.

The record reflects the FSM served in the United States Navy from October 23, 1996 to May 19, 2000, at which time he was discharge as noted above for patterns of misconduct. The FSM contend that most of the allegations brought during active are false, and most of his problems are due to in part the use of alcohol, which was due to or increased because of the harassment he was subjected to by his immediate supervisor.

The FSM requests equitable relief in the manner as noted above, he believes the discharge currently held was unfair and given without due consideration to his previous good service and high proficiency marks.

On the issue of a change of RE-4 code, as we realize this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Discharge Review Board, we ask that the agency notify the FSM and advise him to complete the appropriate application, so this issue can be brought to the Navy Board of Corrections of Military Records.

We ask for the boards careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant.

3. About two years ago I got a DWI, after that they though that everything I did was alcohol related. Everything that I do, they write me up for it and everything that they could dig up on me, they did it. My service record is about 95% wrong. On December 11, 1999, I broke up with my girlfriend. She went up to the squadron that morning and told everyone that I had beaten her up. The next day, I was scared to come in to work because police officer was looking for me. I never laid a hand on another person especially woman. I went to Captain Mass for the whole incident and the part about hitting her was thrown out because everyone knew that I didn't touch her. But, I was punished for not coming in when it happened. That was the only time I was written up for something that I knew was my fault. I was given 40 hours of extra military instructions. My chief P.O. harassed me the whole time I was doing EMI. He asked to over EMI so, that he could continue harassing me. Three months later, I was kick out and never knew I was going to be discharged. This happened just after the Change of Command Ceremony. I know that a person in the military has only a record to go by, to determine the character, work, and attitude of another sailor. I was cheated on all counts.
Since the DWI, every time they wrote me up , they were sending me to alcohol classes. Later, I found out that were because you can only be send there for a certain about times, before they kick you out of the service. I believe that's what happened to me. I was never written -up for the DWI. But, every time someone says, "Where's AN C____," My Chief would come in and say write him up. This happened almost constantly. I never made a mistake on the job. My knowledge and work performance on the aircraft was never disputed. I am a very quick learner and I did everything by the book. Everyone that I worked with knew that. My quality was 100%. I have worked with every shop in my squadron, (aircraft maintenance wise). Every time a bird or birds had to take off on time, mostly the C.O.'s an XO's bird, I was the Plane Captain who did it. I got along with everyone and they got along with me. What made me feel so bad was when I was on my way out the door my Chief asked me, "How do you feel about the Navy now?" I said I love it. But, people like you, (Chief), make it hard for a black man to get a crow on my arm and continue my career. He laughed, I felt I was very mistreated and taken advantage of my whole Naval career. Every chit in service record can be explained from Oct. 21, 1996 to May 17, 2000. Almost everything in there is a lie to get me out before my time. I only had five months left. The reason I joined the Navy is because I many family relative in the military. Most of them are in the Navy. I felt that I could make a career out of it myself. I took up AFJROTC in high school because I already knew what I wanted to do, when I graduated. I'm not asking everyone to look on me like a victim. I just want a well-deserved chance to do what I am good at. That is to work in the field of aviation. My request is an honorable discharge and re-entry code that would allow me to come back into the military.

 Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:

Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Service Related Documents (4)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960924 - 961021  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961022               Date of Discharge: 000519

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: AEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (3)    Behavior: 3.00 (3)                OTA: 2.89 (5.0 Evals)

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: M-16 Sharpshooter Ribbon, SSDR, Navy"E" Ribbon

 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 :

990406:  The applicant failed the run portion of the PRT. Assigned to remedial PT.

990618:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about, 0700, 990429, without authority absent himself from his unit, to wit: HM-14 embarked onboard USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD-6), and did remain so absent until on or about 1100, 990429.
         Award: Correctional Custody Unit for 30 days, forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

990623:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO's NJP of 990618 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

991221:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA (4 Specs), Spec 1: Did on or about 0615, 991210, without authority, absent himself for his unit, to wit: MH-14, located at Naval Station, Norfolk, and did remain so absent until at or about 1203, 991211, Spec 2: Did on or about 0615, 991215, without authority, absent himself for his unit, to wit: MH-14, located at Naval Station, Norfolk, and did remain so absent until at or about 1030, 991215, Spec 3: Did on or about 0615, 991216, without authority, absent himself for his unit, to wit: MH-14, located at Naval Station, Norfolk, and did remain so absent until at or about 1235, 991216, Spec 4: Did on or about 0615, 991220, without authority, absent himself for his unit, to wit: MH-14, located at Naval Station, Norfolk, and did remain so absent until at or about 1400, 991220; violation of UCMJ Article 128: Assault consummated by a battery, in that AEAN C___ did on or about 991210, unlawfully strike AN T___ D. K___ on the mouth with a closed fist.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade. No indication of appeal in the record.
000204:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge, with a characterization of General under Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct.
000204:          Applicant advised of his rights and having 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

000329:  Commanding Officer, Helicopter Mine Countermeasures authorized discharge general under 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 000519 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).

Issue 1. The applicant states, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an incident that occurred after he asked to be transferred to his shop, and when his Chief P. O. didn’t send him to the shop, the applicant asked to get out of the squadron. From that point on, the Chief wrote the applicant up for misconduct committed by others in the shop. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support the allegations he made in this issue. His service record shows he had an NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 86 on 990618, followed by a retention warning, which he violated. A second NJP occurred for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (4 specifications) on 991221, which qualified the applicant for separation for Pattern of misconduct. The applicant did not provide any evidence to show there was an error in procedure or in the assignment of his discharge characterization. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) submitted this issue on behalf of the applicant. The issue states, “the former service member contends that most of the allegations brought during active are false, and most of his problems are due to in part the use of alcohol, which was due to or increased because of the harassment he was subjected to.” The Board determined that alcohol may have played a role in the applicant’s misconduct, however, that is not sufficient reason to relieve the applicant of the responsibility for his actions. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support the allegation that he was being harassed. His service record documents two NJPs for violation of UCMJ Article 86, in addition to a retention warning that he received for the first NJP. The second NJP violated the retention warning, making the applicant eligible for separation. The applicant did not provide any evidence to show there was an error in procedure or in the assignment of his discharge characterization. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief is denied.

The applicant further states he believes the discharge currently held was unfair and given without due consideration to his previous good service and high proficiency marks. The applicant served for 3 years and 6 months of a 4 year enlistment. His performance and behavior marks were average to below average (3.00 and 3.00, based on a 5.0 scale). The applicant’s first NJP occurred 2 years and 7 months after his initial enlistment, and his misconduct continued until he was discharged. The Board determined there were sufficient negative aspects of his service, which over shadowed the positive, to support the command’s decision to separate him with a discharge characterization of General (under Honorable conditions). The NDRB considered the applicant’s entire service record and supporting documentation before making the determination that the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief is denied.

The applicant request that his re-enlistment code (RE code) be changed. The NDRB has no authority to change RE codes. The applicant must petition this request through the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR). Relief is denied.

Issue 3. The applicant states he just wants a well-deserved chance to do what he is good at. He wants to re-enter the military. The NDRB is under no obligation to and will not upgrade an individual’s discharge for the purpose of re-entering any branch of military service. The applicant did not provide any evidence nor is there any documentation in his service record to show that an error or injustice occurred during the discharge proceedings or the assignment of the discharge characterization. Relief is 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00751

    Original file (ND02-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00751 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020430, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. One of those people for an example was the Master Chief of the command. When all came down after the two NJP's this new Senior Chief had convinced the new Maintenance Officer and new Assistant Maintenance Officer, the new Division Officer for the Line Division, and the new Maintenance Master Chief that had not been...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0076

    Original file (FD2002-0076.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0076 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002+-0076 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AMN) (HGH Al1C) 1. You did, at or near Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, on or about 15 Oct 01, while in the office of Senior Master Sergeant .

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01365

    Original file (ND97-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no indication of an appeal in the record.960506: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 91, disrespect toward a third class petty officer on 950929; Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00841

    Original file (ND02-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00841 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was told by navy legal office on Guam that an admin board was to be pick at random, but the Capt pick the board himself, I was also told that one member of my board was suppose to be from another command so as to be impartial this was not done everyone on my board was from my command. The possibility that one of his...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01033

    Original file (MD01-01033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-01033 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I respected him, but told him "That's why they don't want fraternizing, because you never know when a superior will feel disrespected". 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600383

    Original file (ND0600383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060104. I already knew that she was getting tired of being alone and that she could not bare it anymore but there was not much I could do at that point in time because I was not near San Diego to help out, I do remember trying to got a hold of the Duty Office back on base at some point to talk to someone about this but no one was there to answer my phone call. He told me that he was sorry again for what...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00391

    Original file (ND03-00391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030107. The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Approximately two months after reporting to my new duty station, NAS JRB New Orleans, Louisiana, my department was informed of the situation.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00576

    Original file (ND03-00576.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00576 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. I went to his office and he informed me that I was AWOL for a day and would be going to NJP. I ask you to give me back my life and allow me to right the wrong decisions I have made.”Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (American Legion):

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2009-236

    Original file (2009-236.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He noted that the applicant had not yet submitted a rebuttal statement although he “has been given ample time to work on it (no other work except to work on his statement).” Also on April 20, 2007, the Coast Guard Personnel Command issued separation orders authorizing the applicant’s General discharge “by reason [of] misconduct due to [involvement] of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.” The orders required use of the separa- tion code JKA, which denotes an involuntary...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00884

    Original file (ND02-00884.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00884 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020605, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I would be in charge of the Bravo working party. When I was discharged, I returned to Tennessee and started my life over as I had intended.