Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01065
Original file (ND01-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENFR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01065

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010810, 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 020307. 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 (verbatim)

1. To Whom it May Concern: I am respectfully requesting a change of discharge on my records being that while I was in the military I was not going through some very good times due to personal matters that I have never spoke to anyone about or asked for help.
I was also a very young & immature individual who didn't realize the consequences of my actions would not only hurt me or my shipmates for that matter. I thought that by aging a certain way my problems would magically disappear & everything would comeback to normal but it never did I ended up being discharged & still having to deal with my problems without seeking for some help. I would hope that you find it in your heart to give me another opportunity as I try to make my life better from me & my family by granting me with this last request.


 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: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     910824 - 920503  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920505               Date of Discharge: 941116

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: ENFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.10 (2)    Behavior: 3.20 (2)                OTA: 3.10

 Military Decorations: None

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

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930514:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go or leaving place of duty on 6May93. [Extracted from CO's letter dated 24Oct94.] No further information found in service record.
930519:  Retention Warning from USS DULUTH (LPD-6): Advised of deficiency (Failing to go or leaving place of duty (2 specs) failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: mess decks, failure to obey other lawful order, to wit: refused to get up from his seat at a table on the mess decks and go to work.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

931105:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 35 days. Suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
931109:  Retention Warning from USS DULUTH (LPD 6): Advised of deficiency (Drunk and disorderly conduct, to wit: on or about 19Oct93, was drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, absent from appointed place, to wit: on or about 4Nov93, without authority, absent himself from his appointed place of duty, USS DULUTH (LPD 6)), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940610:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty on 5Jun94, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on 5Jun94.
         Award: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 40 days, reduction to ENFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
940610:  Retention Warning from USS DULUTH (LPD-6): Advised of deficiency (Dereliction of duty, false official statement.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

941007:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Fail to go at the time prescribed, to appointed place of duty from 0800, 22Sep94 to 0715, 23Sep94, (2) Absent from unit 0715-1205, 29Sep94.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ENFR. No indication of appeal in the record.
941020:  USS DULUTH (LPD-6) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
941020:  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.
941024:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

941104:  BUPERS 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 941116 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 applicant states that personal matters that he never discussed along with immaturity contributed to his discharge. T he Board determined that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his action, the record clearly reflects his willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that he was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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.

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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00222

    Original file (ND00-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00222 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00338

    Original file (ND00-00338.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930119: USS DULUTH (LPD-6) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious civilian offense, to wit: reckless driving (due to intoxication); misconduct due to a civilian conviction, to wit: violation of California civil law VC 23103(A) reckless driving (due to intoxication); misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00359

    Original file (ND01-00359.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Board will not grant relief concerning this issue. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01026

    Original file (ND02-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01026 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Industrial Maintenance Certificate, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600336

    Original file (ND0600336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00336 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051221. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00830

    Original file (ND02-00830.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): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910929 - 910708 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910709 Date of Discharge: 930121 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 01 06 13 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01076

    Original file (ND02-01076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01076 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020725, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I recommend that ENFR [Applicant] be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable discharge." Navy Instructions specifically state that a Sailor will be separated from military service if warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct regardless of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00246

    Original file (ND00-00246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.930804: USS AUSTIN (LPD-4) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Relief not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “(DAV's Issue) The FSM is contending the discharge General, Under Honorable Conditions is inequitable due to an injury incurred while on active duty. The names,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00495

    Original file (ND01-00495.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: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 921123 Date of Discharge: 940628 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 07 06 Inactive: None I would be very grateful, if the board would change my discharge status to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00661

    Original file (ND02-00661.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    ND02-00661 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020409, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.861105: Vacate suspended reduction to MMFN awarded at CO's NJP dated 10Oct86 due to continued misconduct.870514: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): Disrespectful in language towards PO1 on 8 May 87, (2) Having received a lawful order from a PO1 to hold field day in 1...