Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00762
Original file (ND01-00762.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GMG3, USN
Docket No. ND01-00762

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and change reenlistment code. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a 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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/HARDSHIP, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Applicant's ltr to the Board dtd April 24, 2001, requesting upgrade of discharge, RE-code change, and explanation
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        840620 - 910221  HON
                                             810818 - 840619  HON
         Inactive: USNR            810805 - 810817  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910222               Date of Discharge: 921029

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 27                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 52

 Highest Rate: GMG1

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.6 (3)     Behavior: 3.33 (3)                OTA: 3.46

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NEM, GCM(2), USCGR, NDSM, Navy "E" Ribbon, SSDR (w/2 Bronze Star), ESWS

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/HARDSHIP, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.


 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910222:  Reenlisted for 4 years at Service School Command, Great Lakes, IL.

 920130   Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (failure to pay a legal debt incurred, reflecting discredit upon the military service), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.        

920904:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence - 1 day.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 20 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
920905:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (UA), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.  

921016:  Enlisted Performance Record (Page 9) reflect NJP action in which applicant was reduced to E-4.

[Admin discharge package, separation authority or applicant's request for hardship discharge not contained in record and applicant did not respond to NDRB's letter requesting additional information.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 921029 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of hardship (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).

The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 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. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Pers-814, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, is therefore, denied.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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 been found to 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 clean police record. 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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 AUG 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT .

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 | ND99-00437

    Original file (ND99-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960816: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct based on two NJP's in your current enlistment and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense by violation of UCMJ Articles 92 and 91.960816: Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00791

    Original file (ND03-00791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but not equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00905

    Original file (ND99-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is therefore necessary that he be discharged from the naval service by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder and the characterization of that discharge by warranted by the service record. The applicant was properly diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority and the diagnosis was documented in his medical record. The NDRB does not have the authority to change a medical diagnosis.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00105

    Original file (ND99-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00105 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In issue 1, the applicant states that his “discharge was based on only the three month’s time that the applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00593

    Original file (ND03-00593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920224: Drug and Alcohol Evaluation: Applicant found dependent on alcohol based on a medical evaluation following Level III treatment in November 1991.920319: Civil Conviction: Duvall County Court for violation of driving under the influence on 920318.Sentence: Fined $452.50, probation for 6 months, revoked license for 6 months, community service for 50 hours, DUI school and victim impact panel.920406: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700-1900, 920319,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00063

    Original file (ND03-00063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00063 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021008, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01037

    Original file (ND99-01037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01037 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990729, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to young inexperienced person who didn't know what he was doing. 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. Outstanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00249

    Original file (ND02-00249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you Documentation Applicant did not provide any additional documentation for the Board to consider, therefore, only the Applicant's service and medical records were reviewed. Corrective action provided.Note: No record of counseling/retention warning in official record documenting how personality disorder has effected performance, nor did a period of time elapse for the Applicant to correct any deficiencies as specifically related to his personality disorder.920730: Applicant notified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00071

    Original file (ND02-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19950120 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01036

    Original file (ND99-01036.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910119 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately...