Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01066
Original file (ND01-01066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HN, USNR
Docket No. ND01-01066

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010813, 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 as the 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: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant (2pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 931124               Date of Discharge: 980326

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 03 18
         Inactive: 00 00 16

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 3 (24 month extention)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (1)    Behavior: 3.60 (1)                OTA: 3 .00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: CGUC, AFEM, HSM, SSDR, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

931209:  Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Seaman Apprenticeship program.

970620:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 19 June you ordered medication (Desmopressin) for your use through the Composite Health Care System (CHCS) and also for a patient (Doxycycline) who came in for STD work up under your name without any countersignature from a medical provider. You also stated "You have been treated with this medication prior to your enlistment" and also you have an access key in the computer (CHCS) to order medication before being transferred from the records office, in which you are fully aware that you are not authorized to utilized), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
970807:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation and Article 107: False Official Statements. Specifically on or about 19 June 97, you knowingly misused the Composite Health Care System by ordering medication for yourself that was not prescribed for you by an authorized provider. Then when questioned about the same, you knowingly provided false explanation/statements to your senior chain of command), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
971027:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On or about 971027 at about 0720, HN M____ arrived at work knowing that he is to report no later than 0700 each day, claims was in the building at the time the clinic was at command quarters 0715, quarter was being held, and HN M_____ was standing at the entrance of the clinic waiting for quarters to end not waiting to interrupt. HN M_____ is being counseled for Art 86 of the UCMJ, HN M______ reminded by counseling of the clinic working hours 0700 A.M.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
971030:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On 971030 at approximately 0720, HN M_____ arrived at work 20 minutes late, HN M____ claims he arrived just at the time command quarters started, HN M____ stood by the back entrance not wanting to interrupt quarters claims he was in the building at approximately 0703 after quarters started. HN M_____ was counseled for Art 86 of the UCMJ this is HN M_____ second counseling for this situation this week), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
971030:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (HN M____ arrived at work today with an unsat uniform stains to pants and shirt, in M_____ claim that he can't remove the stain, when asked if he had everything that supposed to be in his seabag he said not everything), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
971104:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On or about 971103 at approximately 0718 HN M_____ arrived at work knowing that the time to report is 0700, however HN M_____ claims he was standing in the back by the door, arriving only minutes after command quarter had started. HN M_____ stated he was informed by the M.A.A that anytime he is late, do no interrupt quarters), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
980129:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Willful destruction of military property, to wit: Did at or near Branch Medical Clinic, Cecil Field, on or about 971224, willfully damage by kicking several times, the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation door; violation of UCMJ Article 121: Wrongful appropriation, to wit: Did at or near Branch Medical Clinic, Cecil Field, on or about 971224, wrongfully appropriate one set of bolt cutters.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 45 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

980202:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your CO's NJP on 980129 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 108, willful destruction of military property and Article 121, wrongful appropriation.
980202:          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 submit statements, to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and the right to General Court-Martial Convening Authority review if I have under 6 years total active and/or reserve military service.
980223:  Commanding officer recommended discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 980326 general (under 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).
The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 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 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 | ND00-00512

    Original file (ND00-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00512 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000404, 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:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Rebuttal for Separation Recommendation to Commanding Officer of Submarine Group 2 (2pgs) Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copies of Commanding Officer's Messages...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01002

    Original file (ND99-01002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01002 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990721, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I show high standards for lift right now and plan to have a very prosperous life for my family. Therefore, I direct that HN (applicant)be separated from the naval service with a general discharge (under honorable conditions).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00797

    Original file (ND02-00797.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149, dated August 17, 2001 Letter from Applicant's mother, dated April 23, 2002 Twenty-four pages from Applicant's service record Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990729 - 990816 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501521

    Original file (ND0501521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “Hardship/Financial.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. He has a long pattern of acting on his intent regardless of the directing of his command. No indication of appeal in the record.020819: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged General (Under Honorable Conditions) with narrative reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01039

    Original file (ND03-01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. I was completely honest at my Mast, and lost my “A” school, but had the other charges suspended for 6 months. I also feel that based on my 47 months of excellent service, my promotion to E-5 , my good conduct medal, my 2 western pacific deployments, and my Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist award, my discharge should be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00409

    Original file (ND99-00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980326: 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.980327: Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and entry level performance and conduct. The Board did not feel that the applicant deserved an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01063

    Original file (ND01-01063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt fit for duty psychiatrically, pt should continue evaluation by neurology for her headaches. Relief based on this issue of propriety is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “This discharge is improper because it clearly states in section i, Personality Disorder in SECNAVINST 1910.4B Part 1 reasons for separation, that a separation is not appropriate when separation is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. The summary of service clearly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00098

    Original file (ND99-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971030 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of 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 desires to upgrade his discharge in order to obtain Montgomery GI Bill...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00793

    Original file (MD99-00793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00793 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990520, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority and change RE code to RE-1. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued970514: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134:Specification: Utter checks of worthless value and failing to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00857

    Original file (ND02-00857.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00857 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020603, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...