Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00774

Original file (ND01-00774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

ex-AD3, USN
Docket No. ND01-00774

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 010517, 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. 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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Discharged in absentia.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. Basis: Refer to record to validate good conduct award for period ending 86 May 10. Refer to record for all awards, military education and command evaluations for all periods. Let it be known that this is supplemental information to my military personnel file, to be reviewed on my behalf in upgrading my discharge to honorable. I entered the U.S. Navy in May of 1982 and progressively excelled to E-5 in two and a half years in the rate of AD. I enjoyed my work and served with honor, as did my father who served in the Navy during World War 11 and held 23 years of active military service. He is buried today, along with my mother, in Arlington National Cemetery. In the last year of my Naval career, I lost my foothold on a promising long-term career due to a drug addiction. That was a major loss in my life. I will now begin, in a somewhat informal manner, to explain some details in support of my respectful request to the review board, in hopes that you will honor my appeal. While overseas working in A.I.M.D Atsugi, Japan attached to VAQ Squadron 136, 1 received a Red Cross message that my father was terminally ill and had six months-to-one year to live. It took Personnel over a week to cut my orders to go back to Conus to see him. During this period another message had been sent stating he had only days to live. I never received this message. I longed to go home to say good-bye to a father I loved dearly, but to whom I had not really expressed my feelings. Only through my choice of a career in Naval Aviation, following in his path, had I done so. When I reached National Airport, my mother and two sisters were there to greet me. My mom pulled me off to the side and told me that my father had passed away only the night before. This literally crushed my heart and I became an angry and confused man. I blamed the Navy for the delay. Thus began the decline of my previous desire to strive and succeed. I know today that my real problem was not knowing how to grieve over the loss of a loved one. Eventually, this confusion turned to alcohol and drug abuse.
As my records demonstrate, I was a hard working sailor. Although my sea duty was coming to an end, the higher echelons in my squadron requested that I stay on with them and extend my tour as a second class petty officer AD2. I became an E-5 in 2 and a half years of service and was an E.A.W.S. So you can see by my performance and evaluations that my heart was in the Navy. I extended in the Navy and received a S.R.B. At this time I received my first Good Conduct Award on 86 May 1 0. After my time was up with VAQ-1 36 USS Midway, I requested orders to NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA in order to be close to my mother in Northern Virginia (she had no one close to her since my father's death). I was then able to visit and help her on the weekends. Unfortunately, returning to the place where I spent my teen-age years was my second downfall. I had joined the Navy, in part, to get away from the negative influences of my high school peer group. One thing led to another and before long I had re-established old behaviors. I struggled with my addiction, trying to straighten out my life and get back on track.

I could feel myself spiraling downward but could not stop it. One day I realized it was not just my life I was jeopardizing but also the life of others. I was becoming an experienced jet engine mechanic and I feared that by making a mistake with an aircraft I was fixing I might injure others. That's when I told my command that I had a problem.
I felt sure then that my career was over, but my C/O and staff talked to me and checked my file. Based on this, they told me I was an asset and that my potential was worth saving. They also told me I was the first person in their command to personally come forward without first getting caught. So, they sent me to a rehabilitation program in San Diego. Thus began my journey towards recovery. I had great success during the program. Unfortunately, the after-care program that was supposed to be set up for me upon return to Oceana was never implemented. Ninety percent of those who have just completed a program relapse, and I was no exception. During my program I was told that this would likely happen, and I was encouraged to tell someone when the time came. That is just what I did. When I told my chief of command, it all began to unravel. The lack of after-care and the misunderstanding of what an addict experiences in the first stages of recovery took its toll. My chief started the process of discharging me from the Navy. I had tried very hard to succeed. Instead, I was knocked down a pay grad and put in a restricted barracks to wait for discharge. I felt hurt and betrayed and so instead of waiting, I left restriction and went home. That is why the Navy discharged me in absentia and the pattern of misconduct was attached with an OTH.
Although I have been discharged from the Navy, the Navy is still inside me. I cannot change what took place; I accept it. But the simple reason I write this appeal to you today is to try to "change the things I can". I have suffered much apathy and procrastination in the past twelve years. I didn't think it mattered, actually, as long as I stayed clean and sober. The Navy taught me to pay attention to detail and to stand tall and proud. That is what I am doing today. The next time I visit my father and mother at Arlington National Cemetery, I want to bring them the good news that I have received an Honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy. Then I can stand proudly beside their gravesite. It was an honor to serve my country, so please let the record reflect my honorable intentions. I, (applicant), respectfully request that a discharge review board make the necessary changes and upgrade my discharge to Honorable. Sincerely,

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: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     811231 - 820510 COG

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 820511               Date of Discharge: 880229

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 07 13
         Inactive: None

Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (36 months extension)

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

Highest Rate: AD2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 3.80 (2)    Behavior: 3.33 (3)                OTA: 3.50

Military Decorations: None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCA, MUC, SSDR(3 ^RD ), EAWS

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 64

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

870205: Retention Warning from [NAS OCEANA, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA]: Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct and/or minor disciplinary infractions), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

870212: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order, on or about 870123 fail to obey lawful order by not attending his CAAC appointment after being directly told to do so by LT K____.          Award: Reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

870303: Civil Conviction: [General District Court, Criminal Division Virginia Beach, VA] for Forging and Uttering, SC 18.2-172. Amended to Petit Larceny, SC 18.2-96.
Sentence: Court cost, nine months in jail (suspended), 1 year good behavior.

870306: Medical Officer's evaluation for drug and alcohol abuse indicates applicant is psychologically dependent.

871204: Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specs),
         Spec 1: UA from appointed place of duty, to wit: BLDG 301 work center 41A from on or about 0700, 870716 until on or about 1130 870716; Spec 2: UA from appointed place of duty from on or about 0700, 870727 until on or about 1130, 870727; Spec 3: UA from appointed place of duty from on or about 0700 870817 until on or about 070, 870807. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: (2 Specs), Spec 1: Wrongfully use cocaine, a controlled substance, while not on a period of extended leave or liberty, on or about 870706 to 870716; Spec 2: On or about 870716, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs; incapacitated for the performance of duty.
         Finding: to Charge I and specifications 1,2 and 3 thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $326.90 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-4.
         CA action 871211: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

871222: To UA

871230: From UA [8days/S].

880209: Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 880203 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0730, 880104 from AIMD NAS OCEANA, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.

880621: Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant returned to military control for administrative purpose 880228. Discharged in absentia 880229.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 880229, in absentia under other than 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).

The applicant’s issue asserts that the discharge was inequitable based on his service record, lack of after care treatment, and illness/death of his father. The NDRB considered the applicant’s entire service record and found the other than honorable discharge was appropriately assigned. The applicant’s positive contributions were recognized with a good conduct medal. However, the applicant began a pattern of misconduct in 1987 that included an NJP, a civil conviction, and a Summary Court Martial. The record shows the applicant was discharged in absentia after deserting from the service. The applicant’s issues regarding a lack of after care and illness/death of his father, do not sufficiently mitigate his misconduct. The Other Than Honorable discharge characterization accurately describes the applicant’s service. Relief is 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 sobriety, 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, effective 870615 - 890110), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00172

Original file (ND04-00172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND04-00172 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031107. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.930719: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ...
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00071

Original file (ND00-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850830 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A and B). 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 applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00563

Original file (ND03-00563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. Additionally, t he Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue.
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00559

Original file (ND99-00559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

940630: Counseling concerning personal behavior and responsibilities (failed to attend remedial physical conditioning program, as directed), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.940805: Counseling concerning responsibilities (failed seabag re-inspection - numerous items missing or couldn't find them due to clothes piled up at bottom of locker), notified of corrective actions and assistance...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501521

Original file (ND0501521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Hardship/Financial.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. He has a long pattern of acting on his intent regardless of the directing of his command. No indication of appeal in the record.020819: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged General (Under Honorable Conditions) with narrative reason of...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00078

Original file (ND01-00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND01-00078 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I never signed or received said document, and at all times relevant I would have requested counsel. Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.In point V, the petitioner (applicant) states that “he was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, even thought he retained his rank as...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00044

Original file (ND03-00044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ATAN, USN Docket No. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 200030828. To the Review Board,I have requested that you review my character of service, which is listed on my last DD 214 as "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions".
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01087

Original file (ND99-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 9Jul90 to 14AUG90 (36 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he successfully completed the first 4 years of his enlistment and because he was not transferred to a...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501465

Original file (ND0501465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20000511 – 20001102 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600589

Original file (ND0600589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

040209: Pretrial agreement approved.Applicant from pretrial confinement (56 days).040210: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Did, on or about 030905, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: VF-101, located at Virginia Beach, Virginia, and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 031216. Sentence: Confinement for 75 days.040217: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00774

Similar Decisions