Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00951
Original file (ND01-00951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND01-00951

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010717, 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 020221. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

1. The discharge that I received from the Navy was improperly imposed upon me. Due to the fact that I was faithful to my country and took pleasure in defending her. When on duty I gave my commanding officer 110%. My evaluations and awards that I received support the sincerity of this application. By trying to excel through the ranks and be the best at my job I wanted to show the Navy that I was a good investment. However, I realize that foolish and immature decisions wee made on my behalf, and I truly and deeply regret them. I do no regret joining the Navy, I enjoyed serving my country. Also I have come to a point in my life that I cannot dwell on the mistakes of my past. I learned from the mistakes I made in the Navy and I am a better person today with a bright future ahead of me. I am a born again Christian, I have not been in any trouble with the law. I have also held a steady job for almost 5 years.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record dated January 15, 1996
Copy of letter of appreciation dated February 1995 (2)
 Enlisted Performance Evaluation Record dated February 17, 1995
Examination Profile information
Recommendation for advancement worksheet dated March 25, 1995
Copy of certificate of completion dated July 1, 1994
Copy of letter of commendation dated April 1 to August 31, 1994
Copy of Sailor of the Month Award for Month of February 1995
Copy of certificate dated March 21, 1995
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921027 - 930124  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930125               Date of Discharge: 961016

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 03 08 22
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35
Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.80 (1)    Behavior: 4.00 (1)                OTA: 3.80        4.0 evals*
 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 4.00 (1)                OTA: 4.00        5.0 evals*

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFEM, NATO, SASM with 1 Bronze Star, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
*Extracted from supporting documents submitted by the applicant
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950522:  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91:
         Specification: Disrespectful in language on 22Apr95.
          Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
          Specification: Failure to obey lawful order on 22Apr95.
         Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128:
          Specification: Assault on 22Apr95.
          Finding: to Charge I, II and III and specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Confinement for 20 days, reduction to SA.
          CA action 950522: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

 950522:  Applicant to confinement.
950608:  Applicant from confinement.
961016:  DD Form 214: Discharge applicant under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Discharge package missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961016 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).
Issue 1. The Board found that the applicant’s performance evaluations and commendatory awards do not mitigate the applicant’s misconduct. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for offenses triable by court-martial on one occasion and a Summary Court-Martial on two occasions. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. Relief denied.

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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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 | ND99-00053

    Original file (ND99-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge wasn't base on my service in the Navy. No indication of appeal in the record.960813: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by your violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault consummated by a battery on 23 April 1996, Article 134, false or unauthorized pass offense on 26 January 1996, and Article 134, wrongfully committing an indecent act on 23...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00175

    Original file (ND00-00175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    960624: 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.960628: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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 first issue states: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00862

    Original file (ND99-00862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 970703: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a civilian conviction as evidenced all domestic violence incidents in your current enlistment; your Commanding Officer's nonjudicial punishment of 17 November 1995, for a violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, 2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00882

    Original file (ND02-00882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00882 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020606, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00974

    Original file (ND99-00974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00974 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990713, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00759

    Original file (ND02-00759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 76 Highest Rate: IC3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.93 (3) Behavior: 3.80 (3) OTA: 4.00 Performance: 5.00 (2) Behavior: 3.80 (2) OTA: 4.00 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFSM, AFEM, SSDR, NATO, NMCAM, GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 117 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00527

    Original file (ND01-00527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-DCFA, USN Docket No. ND01-00527 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010315, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and his re-enlistment code upgraded from an Re-Code-4 to a re-enlistment codes so he may re-enlist. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00775

    Original file (ND04-00775.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041029. Therefore, no relief will be granted.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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01136

    Original file (ND99-01136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01136 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990825, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970207 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...