Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00940
Original file (ND01-00940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ABEAA USN
Docket No. ND01-00940

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010723, 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 020130. 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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. DEAR BOARD OF CORRECTIONS,

THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT IS TO CONVINCE YOU THAT I DO NOT DESERVE AN OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE ON MY RECORD. ALTHOUGH IF YOU LOOK AT MY RECORDS ON PAPER IT MIGHT SEEM THAT I WAS NOT A GOOD SAILOR IN THE NAVY. IM NOT GOING TO BLAME ANY OF MY MISCONDUCT ON ANY BODY ELSE BUT MYSELF AND I TAKE FULL RESPONSABILITY OF MY ACTIONS. I DO HOWEVER, FEEL THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED FROM THE NAVY BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKES THAT I HAVE MADE. I WAS AN EAGER SAILOR WILLING TO LEARN AND IF YOU SEE MY RECORDS, IT WILL SHOW THAT I PASSED MY 3 RD CLASS PETTY OFFICER TEST THE FIRST TIME I TOOK IT. I WAS A LEADER ON THE FLIGHT DECK DURING THE MOST DANGEROUS TIME "FLIGHT OPERATIONS". I HELD A POSITION ON THE FLIGHT DECK AS AN N APPRENTICE THAT IS NORMALLY HELD BY A PETTY OFFICER! I SHOWED GREAT POTENTIAL AS A GROWING SAILOR AND I ALSO HELPED LEAD MY TEAM OF CATAPULT MEMBERS TO A PERFECT WEST PAC 98 WITH NO CASULTIES. I MOVED UP ON MY QUALIFICATIONS VERY QUICKLY IN MY WORK CENTER AND ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF THINGS QUICKER THAN MOST. I WAS NOT READY TO LEAVE THE NAVY WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO FULLFILL MY CONTRACT. I ONLY HAD 8 MONTHS LEFT OF THE MILITARY AND DID NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING. THE SITUATION THAT TOOK PLACE THAT DID STOP ME FROM FULLFILLING MY DUTY WAS SOMETHING I WONT FORGET. ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 15 TH , 1999, MY FRIENDS TOOK ME OUT FOR MY BIRTHDAY AND BOUGHT ME A FEW DRINKS. I GOT A LITTLE DRUNK AND DECIDED TO GO BACK TO THE SHIP. I HAD A FRIEND BRING ME BACK IN MY CAR AND HE WAS STOPPED BY THE BASE POLICE AND GIVEN A D.U.I. THEY TOOK ME TO MEDICAL AND KEPT ME UP ALL NIGHT AND TREATED ME LIKE A CRIMINAL. I WAS HURASSED BY THE SHIPS MASTER AT ARMS ALL NIGHT LONG. I WAS FINALLY ALOWED TO GO TO SLEEP AT, 6:00 IN THE MORNING AND I      HAD TO WAKE UP AT 7:00 FOR WORK. NOW ANYBODY KNOWS THAT 1 HOUR OF SLEEP ISNT GOING TO HELP. THE POINT IS THAT I GOT IN TROUBLE FOR BEING UNFIT FOR DUTY AND IF I HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO GO TO SLEEP WHEN MY FRIEND GOT IN TROUBLE THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE. I DIDNT DO ANYT14ING WRONG THAT NIGHT, MY FRIEND DID! I FEEL I WAS PUNISHED FOR SOMETHING THAT IS MY RIGHT. THERE IS NO LAW IN THE MILITARY OR CIVLIAN LAW THAT SAYS IF YOU ARE OVER 21 YOU CANT DRINK! A FEW MONTHS EARLIER I WAS SENT TO A ALCOHOL REHAB CENTER FOR ANOTHER ONE OF MY MISTAKES THAT HAPPEND IN AUSTRALIA. ME AND A FRIEND WENT OUT THAT NIGHT AND DID WHAT JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER SAILOR WOULD DO, WALK AROUND, SHOP, TOUR THE COUNTRY AND GET A FEW DRINKS. ME AND MY FRIEND WENT TO A CLUB THAT NIGHT AND ENDED UP GETTING SEPERATED SO I HAD TO GO BACK TO THE SHIP. IT WAS 1:00 AT NIGHT AND OUR CURFEW WAS 12:00 SO I WAS LATE. THEY ENDED UP TURNING THE SITUATION INTO A ALCOHOL RELATED PROBLEM. IN REALITY IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ALCOHOL. ANYHOW, I WAS SENT TO REHAB CLASSES AND AGREED ON A PROGRAM WITH MY COUNCILOR THAT I WOULD BE MORE RESPONSABLE WHEN DEALING WITH ALCOHOL AND THATS WHAT I FELT I WAS DOING THE NIGHT OF MY BIRTHDAY. I KNEW I HAD ENOUGH, I HAD A FRIEND DRVE ME BACK TO THE BASE, AND I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO BED. SO YOU SEE, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT I HAVE STATED, AND I PROMISE IT IS THE TRUTH, THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT BOTH OF THOSE SITUATIONS ARE QUESTIONABLE AND ARE NOT WORTH GETTING KICKED OUT OF THE MILITARY. I HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFULL LIFE NOW OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY. I GOT A JOB 2 WEEKS AFTER BEING DISCHARGED AND I AM STILL CURRENTLY EMPLOYED THIER. I BEGIN WORKING ON MY QUALIFICATIONS FOR MY FIRE ALARM TEST NEXT WEEK AND THEN WILL RECIEVE A LICENSE TO OPERATE FIRE ALARMS. THE KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO RECIEVE YOUR LICENSE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BECOME A FIRE CHIEF INSPECTOR. I PASSED MY COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM AND I WILL START COLLEGE EITHER THIS SUMMER OR I WILL START THIS FALL. BUT THE THING THAT STILL HAUNTS ME IS THE FACT THAT MY LIFE AND OPTIONS ARE LIMITED BECAUSE OF MY MISTAKES IN THE NAVY. ALL I ASK IS FOR MY DISCHARGE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR UPGRADE SO THAT I CAN MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP AND I HOPE YOU HONESTLY TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK OVER MY PROBLEM.

THANKS AGAIN!
(APPLICANT)
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: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970102               Date of Discharge: 991113

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 00
         Inactive: 00 06 01

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: ABEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 3.17

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM, SSDR, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980424:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful general order, hazing between Nov97 and Jan98.
         Award: Reduction to ABEAA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
981123:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Fail to obey other lawful order on 13Nov98.
         Award: Restriction for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
981123:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Fail to obey other lawful order.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990919:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongful overindulgence of liquor for the proper performance of duty on 16Jun99.
         Award: Forfeiture of $537 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ABEAA. No indication of appeal in the record.
991013:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.
991013:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not 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

991026:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.

991108:  COMCRUDESGRU THREE 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 991113 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 (letter) described the circumstances of his service and discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s service record and found the Other Than Honorable discharge proper and equitable. The applicant’s service record shows three NJP’s and appropriate counsel and warnings were issued. The applicant’s positive contributions were outweighed by his misconduct. Relief is not warranted.

 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. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00110

    Original file (ND01-00110.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00110 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001031, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. 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 applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01444

    Original file (ND03-01444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT CAPTAIN MASS AND HE INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP 3 TIMES AND THAT IT SHOWS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND HE RECOMMEND THAT I BE DISCHARGED UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00933

    Original file (ND04-00933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00933 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040518. I tried my best to be the man the Navy wanted but because of my medical problems which began with a fractured wrist the very first week on a ship. Appeal denied 990402.No Discharge Package PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990402 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01410

    Original file (ND03-01410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I felt that the Navy had let me down I realized that it was wrong and I hated the Navy and their ways after that day I wanted out and I felt to just get out I would just go UA for a while and they would let me go. I swear to you she did push me and I can’t believe how they handled it and all I want to do is go back into time and do things different, but I can’t so I went a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00586

    Original file (ND99-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only discussion I can ever remember my division officer having with me was how he would rip my earring out of my ear if he ever saw me wear it.- The professional counseling that was never scheduled was the result of the only man who tried to help me on this ship. I did not deserve to be denied the professional counseling that was offered to me and ordered by my Captain. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00305

    Original file (ND00-00305.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Navy had changed my life so much for the better. Award: Correctional custody for 30 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 (C and D).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that “what had happened was an extreme abuse of power on the Captain’s part.” The applicant only served for one year and 5 months...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00658

    Original file (ND04-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION A FEW MONTHS HAD GONE BY AND I TOLD FIRST CLASS T_ THAT I DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH PETTY OFFICER W_. SO I DIDN’T LIKE WHAT HE WAS SAYING TO ME, SO I FINISHED THE JOB AND WENT BACK TO MY DIVISION.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01323

    Original file (ND02-01323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01323 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to RE-3D Failure to Meet Disciplinary Standards. The Duty Officer told the Duty Chief that I was sick and would not be coming to Dink Study that night. So later on that night I asked him again and STS1 S_ stated, "I don't feel qualified to give you a walkthrough."