Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00781
Original file (ND01-00781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00781

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010516, 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

 1. My discharge should be changed because due to I have learned my lesson the military is the only way for me, I am in the reserves right now, but I will like to be active again. I have try my best to better myself. But the military is the only career for me. So I ask would you give another chance to serve my country and be the best that I can be.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of Enlistment Waiver
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)     981110 - 981117  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 981118               Date of Discharge: 991223

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 07 23
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)
Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33
Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 107

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990929:  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 990530 to 990914 (107days/S). Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement on 990611.
         Finding: to Charge I and II and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Restriction for 60 days.
          CA action 991020: Approved.
991023:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [Extracted from case file].
991023:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights [Extracted from case file].
991129:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [Extracted from case file].
991202:  Commander, Carrier Group Six authorized the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [Extracted from case file].

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 991223 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole reason of enhancing the applicant’s opportunity to return to active duty. 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. The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .
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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00684

    Original file (ND00-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00684 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00167

    Original file (ND00-00167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981031 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00120

    Original file (ND01-00120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow him to obtain better employment. At this time, the applicant has not provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01194

    Original file (ND01-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01194 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant described the circumstances surrounding discharge and requested a change based on his post service conduct. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00243

    Original file (ND00-00243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00243 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991209, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The applicant’s statement that he had 5 years and 2 months of honorable service and 2 tours in the Gulf are without merit.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00431

    Original file (ND00-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00437

    Original file (ND04-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00779

    Original file (ND01-00779.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00779 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010516, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00299

    Original file (ND01-00299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have submitted this application because I would like to re-enter the Navy. 981229: Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes authorized the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Although the applicant’s discharge characterization was proper at the time of discharge, because of equitable considerations, the Board voted to grant the applicant relief, and change his discharge characterization to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00841

    Original file (ND03-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 020204: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s discharge with a characterization of Other Than Honorable because ITSR V__’s special court martial did not impose a punitive discharge. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the...