Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01118
Original file (ND01-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-01118

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010824, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or 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 020328. 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 (verbatim)

 1. I am asking for an upgrade in Discharge due to the fact that I wanted to return home and help care for my quadriplegic father (A____ T___ JR) who is also a veteran. My father took ill after my enlistment. Once my rate and time of enlistment were changed due to the fact I had a juvenile involvement. I lost enthusiasm in the navy, then my father took ill. I asked for a hardship general discharge and was denied. From that point on I intentionally tried for dismissal. I was young and not quite clear on judgment. I still to this day care for my father and he would be so proud of me, if I can show him I served my country honorably. I also seek to serve my country again as a employee of the Veteran's Hospital in Michigan.

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: USN                        None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     889322 - 880811  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880812               Date of Discharge: 900706

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 81

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.90 (2)    Behavior: 3.20 (2)                OTA: 3.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: BATTLE"E"AWARD

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 19

 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 :

881008:  Retention Warning from [RTC, NTC, GLAKES, IL]: Advised of deficiency (4 TH Class Swimmer qualified), notified of corrective actions.

881017:  (CNMPC): You are being retained in the Naval Service, despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre service civil involvement: Arrest in June 88 as a disorderly person. Fined $75.00. However, any further deficiencies in performance or conduct may result in processing for administrative separation.

881024:  Retention Warning for performance and conduct.

890810:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91(3 Specs), Spec 1: Disrespectful in language toward a 2 nd Class Petty Officer, Spec 2: Fail to obey lawful order from a Senior Chief Petty Officer, to wit: Clean up the fantail; Spec 3: Disrespectful in language toward a 2 ND Class Petty Officer.
Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended 3 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
890816:  Retention Warning from USS GUAM (LPH-9): Advised of deficiency (Failure to comply with directives from Senior Petty Officer and Chief Petty Officer, Disrespect to Seniors), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900531:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specs), Spec 1: Failed to go to appointed place of duty on or about 900423; Spec 2: Go from his appointed place of duty on or about 900502; Spec 3: UA from 900505 to 900524 (19days/S); violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Fail to obey a lawful order of PO1 on or about 900502.
         Award: 3 days Bread and Water, forfeiture of $405.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

900615:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty on or about 900608.
         Award: Forfeiture of $362.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

900619:  USS GUAM notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct [Extracted from CO's message].
900619:          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 [Extracted from CO's message].
900620:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

900626:  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 900706 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 states that family problems mitigated his misconduct and he would like an upgrade in order to secure employment with the VA. The NDRB is under no obligation and will not upgrade an individual’s discharge for the purpose of obtaining better employment. Additionally, the NDRB found nothing in the applicant’s service record nor did he provide any evidence to support his claim that he had personal problems that could not be resolved through his chain of command. There is no documentation to show that the applicant even attempted to use his chain of command to resolve his personal problems. The record shows the applicant was found guilty at NJP for violations of the UCMJ on three separate occasions and he was properly counseled concerning further misconduct. The Board found the Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service. Relief is not warranted.

 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 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 | ND99-00587

    Original file (ND99-00587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00587 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990324, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. 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 issues 1 and 2, the Board determined these issues are without merit. He clearly established a pattern of misconduct, in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00660

    Original file (ND01-00660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00660 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. 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 names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00021

    Original file (ND99-00021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board found these issues to be without merit. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00234

    Original file (ND03-00234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was on restriction and told I was going to CCU, but at that point I really couldn’t and didn’t want to. 000316: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 0705 hours, 000315, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty to wit: Restricted Muster; violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by OM2 R_ Z_, to wit: To leave the Polarisville berthing trailer and stay within the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600044

    Original file (ND0600044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Furthermore, there is no indication in the record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant’s personal situation was not considered by the separation authority.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00089

    Original file (ND02-00089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00089 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011010, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00698

    Original file (ND03-00698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Hopefully this issue will present itself.Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Applicant’s statement Chapter 11 General Regulations, Section 5. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01178

    Original file (ND01-01178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.950511: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 11May95.950509: USS SAVANNAH (AOR 4) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense.950510: Applicant advised of his rights and having...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00950

    Original file (ND02-00950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Review Board requested that we not be discharged. The final UA's and Captains Masses (2) were when I went UA to assure my discharge as I just wanted to Get Out, after losing my rank and Tech School. His page-13 given during a previous assignment to UIC 35096 cannot be used for processing which invalidates processing for “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.’ Administrative Discharge Board found member not guilty of “Misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.” 880720: Retention Warning from...

  • 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...