Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01129
Original file (ND01-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND01-01129

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010829, 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 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: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Approximately five months after being awarded a second navy and marine corps achievement medal for outstanding duty during the ships "TSTA" Training cycles, my commander awarded me a general discharge with an RE-4 code, due to a "Pattern of Misconduct." At that time, and even now, being given a medal for doing an outstanding job, and then to go to the other extreme( of a discharge), does not make too much sense. This, of course, was mostly of my own fault. I was having marriage problems, and had gotten a DUI. I requested CAAC Level III Rehabilitation and was unfortunately "put on the back burner" for several months after becoming separated from my wife, and on the day that I found out that I had made back my second class crow, after surrendering a stripe to come back on active duty. I mistakenly went out and got a second DUI. The ship had just started 'TSTA" Training, and I felt that I would probably be discharged. So I went to my commanding officer and informed him that I did wish to stay in the navy, although I did feel that I had made a terrible mistake. I asked him to at least allow me to stay throughout all the 'TSTA" Training, so that I could proudly serve in what I felt was a time of need, and again, requested to Level III CAAC before being discharged. All of this was granted, and I gave it my very best. The ship passed through "TSTA" tremendously, and I later, successfully passed Level III. Much to my surprise, our new captain decided to retain me in the navy, obviously from a recommendation from our prior CO, and my chain of command. Sadly, several months later, my upper chain of command discharged me. The ship, upon which, I was stationed, was on her last cruise, a great lake cruise, before becoming decommissioned and later sold to a foreign government. It seemed that many of the officers and crew was just going through the motions, biding their time. To add to that, at the time, I was in the middle of my divorce. On the day of the " incident", we where in port and I had duty. I was petty officer of the watch on the quarterdeck, with a 1 ST class petty officer as the officer of the deck. Another 1 st class, who had been spending the short cruise going through chief petty officer initiation, came through the quarterdeck trying to get personnel together to take off the trash. He was being loud and belligerent towards everything and everybody. I felt that this was not appropriate behavior on the quarterdeck, and proceeded to tell him so. He did not respond well to this, and a heated argument ensued. He threatened to write me up, and I told him to go ahead, thinking that I was in the right. The OOD, who had spent majority of the watch outside, testified at captain’s mast, only that we did have an argument. Reflecting back on it now, I feel that I was at fault for neglecting to respect the other individual’s rank, although no one thought of the respect of the personnel standing watch. At the time, my immediate chain of command informed me that I would have a good chance of appealing the case, and overturning the captain’s judgment. But with the decommissioning going on, plus everyone's attitude, and my divorce, I decided to give up the fight. That is a decision that I have regretted ever since. After being discharged, I have been successful in turning my life around. I have been continuing my education at Indiana University, and I am employed at a good company, that I have been with for almost three years. I am also currently engaged, and we have just recently been blessed with the birth of a beautiful baby girl. I have also, just completed a successful tour, in the Indiana Army National Guard, under the "Try One Program" with an Honorable discharge, and a RE-1 re-enlistment code. I enlisted in the National Guard to continue my career, for educational benefits, and to try something different. After a successful year, I have decided and wish, to come back to the navy, by attempting to enlist into the Naval Reserve. I am submitting this package, in the hopes to have my most recent U.S. Navy Discharge changed to an Honorable Discharge, and to have my re-enlistment code changed from an re-4 code to a re-1 code.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of Previous DD Form 214 (Honorable)
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Report of Separation and Record of Service (ARNG)

 NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               870521 - 910520  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870430 - 870520  COG
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     951219 - 960317  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960318               Date of Discharge: 970825

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 29                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 71

 Highest Rate: OS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.50 (2)                OTA: 3.57 (5.0 Evals)

 Military Decorations: NAM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, SOSR, GMC, NRMSM, MUC, BATTLE"E"RIBBON

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960318:  Reenlisted at TRANSITPERSU GREAT LAKES, IL for 4 years.

 960524:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

960828:  Previously reported RIR to OSSN during CO's NJP of 960524 mitigated this date to Forfeiture $651.00 pay per month for 1 month.

970301:  Applicant found alcohol dependence with physiological dependence at Addictions Rehabilitation Clinic.

970412:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Substandard performance in the case of alcohol abuse incident. Misconduct in the case of alcohol abuse incident), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

        
Discharge package not available.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970825 general under 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’s issue describes the circumstances of his discharge and states and describes his educational pursuits as well as service in the Indiana National Guard. The applicant requests his RE Code be changed so he may enter the Naval Reserve. The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the applicant’s discharge. Although the applicant’s discharge package was missing, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of government affairs. Relief is not warranted.

 The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Pers-814, 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief, is therefore, 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 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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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 | ND99-00586

    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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00543

    Original file (ND04-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Within 3-days he realized that he was having the same problem as I had and changed the watch schedule so that he had a day watch and could get more sleep.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00971

    Original file (ND04-00971.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00971 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040527. No indication of appeal in the record.980818: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.980818: Applicant advised of 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00051

    Original file (ND04-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00051 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031008. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00665

    Original file (ND00-00665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Forfeiture of $375.90 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.910126: USS MARVIN SHIELDS (FF 1066) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO's NJP's on 12Apr90 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (2 specifications) - UA for 3 hours and 20 minutes; UA...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01392

    Original file (ND03-01392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. MY LEAVE CHIT WAS DATED FOR ME TO TAKE A LEAVE ON 16 DECEMBER 2000 THROUGH 15 JANUARY 2001 AT 1730. WHEN WE RETURNED FROM UNDERWAY, THE MASTER AT ARMS CAME UP TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN AUTHORIZE TO TAKE LEAVE.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01324

    Original file (ND03-01324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. THEY BOTH STATED TO ME THAT AS LONG AS I PAID IT BACK IT WOULD BE CLEARED. WELL SECOND PETTY OFFICER R_ PLACED HIS WALLET ON MY RACK, BUT WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND IS WHY?

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01058

    Original file (ND00-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01058 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000915, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My discharge was inequitable because it was base on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action.

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00011

    Original file (ND04-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00011 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“1). INJUSTICE: Punishing me twice after already serving my punishment and time.