Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00807
Original file (ND01-00807.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AOAR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00807

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


 Issues

1. My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was caused by the bipolar disorder that I was not even aware that I had. The condition was never diagnosed while I was on active duty. As you can see by the documents attached, with medication I am able to assume a career and productive life.

 Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Note from applicant's doctor
Copy of DD Form 214
Twenty-five pages from applicant's service record
Copy of Ohio Peace Officer Certification Exam Results dated June 24, 1992
Copy of certificate of completion from Ohio Peace Officer Basic Training Program dated June 13, 1992
Copy of certificate of completion for requirements for welding dated September 24, 1999
Copy of oath of office dated July 7, 1995
Character reference dated March 16, 1994
Copy of employment verification

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880719 - 990611  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880719               Date of Discharge: 900611

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: AOAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                  Behavior: NOB             OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

891108:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny of silverware from wardroom.
         Award: Forfeiture of $350 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 7 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
891108:  Retention Warning from USS SAIPAN: Advised of deficiency (Establishing a record of minor disciplinary infractions and a pattern of misconduct.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

891121:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny of 5 wheel covers.
         Award: Forfeiture of $340 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 35 days, reduction to AOAR. No indication of appeal in the record.
900430:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect to a petty officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $360 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900501:  USS SAIPAN notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. [Extracted from CO's message dated 5May90.]

900501:  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 CO's message dated 5May90.]
900505:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900509:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than 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 900611 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 states: “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because it was caused by the bipolar disorder that I was not even aware that I had. The condition was never diagnosed while I was on active duty. As you can see by the documents attached, with medication I am able to assume a career and productive life.” The applicant was diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder ten years after his discharge. This diagnosis is insufficient evidence to support the assumption that the applicant had a bi-polar disorder during his enlistment. The Board did not find any documentation in the applicant’s record to demonstrating that the applicant was not responsible for his misconduct while on active duty. Relief is denied.

 The following is provided for the benefit of the applicant. 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 clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide any of these documents. 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 is denied.





Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01098

    Original file (ND99-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920717: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 2 days, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant’s Commanding Officer was within his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01074

    Original file (ND01-01074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Three pages from applicant's service record Letter from Mental Health Center dated July 31, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880830 - 890205 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890206 Date of Discharge: 900530...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00836

    Original file (ND03-00836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/ under honorable conditions. Member has low potential for further naval service.900116: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. For the Applicant’s information, he may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for a change to his records if he believes that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00947

    Original file (ND00-00947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00947 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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. Violation of UCMJ, Article 123A (4 specifications): Specification 1: Presented a check for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500584.

    Original file (ND0500584..rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Discharge was improper and inequitable in that Applicant was discharged as a result of his self-referral to Naval medical authorities for mental problems – he was discharged rather than given treatment. Equity-Post Service.”

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00872

    Original file (ND02-00872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00872 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 001205: Vacate suspended sentence of forfeiture of $337.00 and extra duty for 14 days.001215: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (1) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 0730, 001127 to 0931, 001128 (1 day), to wit: Regimental Aid Station, (2) Unauthorized absence 0730, 001129 to 0937, 001204 (5...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00260

    Original file (ND99-00260.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 appearance hearing. ]900611: USS STEPHEN W. GROVES (FFG 29) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct as evidenced by 26 Aug 89 award of CO’s NJP for violation of Article 86 (2 specs), Unauthorized absence (1 days, 22 hours,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00414

    Original file (ND04-00414.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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Statement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00752

    Original file (ND03-00752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00752 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030328. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00754

    Original file (ND01-00754.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 941206 - 950506 ELS Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950531 Date of Discharge: 970214 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 08 10 Inactive: 00 00 04 CA action 960513: Sentence approved and ordered...