Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01134
Original file (ND01-01134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-MS3, USN
Docket No. ND01-01134

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010829, 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 020419. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 363060.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in which information relating to my discharge was given by self-admission, had I not had volunteered any information I would have finished my service with no other type of problems. Also, had I not have volunteered to take a "consensual" urinalysis I would have no record of wrong doing in the Navy other than what was previously listed in my service record, which had previously been corrected.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from Senator, District 6 dated July 11, 2001
Character reference dated August 17, 2001
 Character reference from Senior Pastor of Vidalia Church of God dated July 3, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921022 - 930811  ELS
                  USNR (DEP)      940323 - 940522  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940523               Date of Discharge: 960711

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 02 19
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 87

 Highest Rate: MS3
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.60 (1)                OTA: 4.00
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 41

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940323:  Applicant received an enlistment waiver for USN DEP discharge.
950918:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0500, 18Sep95.

 950920:  Applicant missed ship's movement.
951006:  Applicant returned from unauthorized absence 1000, 6 Oct95 (18 days/surrendered).
951102:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (total 18 days), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement.
         Award: Forfeiture of $250 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, R/R. Punishment suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
960429:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 29Apr96.

 960429:  Applicant missing ship's movement.
960502:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1430, 2May96 (3 days/surrendered).

960711:  DD Form 214: Discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
Discharge package missing.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 960711 under other than 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).
Issue 1. The applicant implies he was discharged for illegal drug use, however the Board found the applicant was discharged for the commission of a serious offense which may have been missing ship’s movement on 960429. While the applicant may feel that his discharge was inequitable because he had corrected his deficiencies, 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 denied.
The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice is evident 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 – 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00172

    Original file (ND99-00172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My family is also going through counseling as well and it has proved to help them tremendously. I recommend that MSSN (applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.970922: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Changes in the applicant’s life since his discharge do not change the facts leading up to and the reason for his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00256

    Original file (ND03-00256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00256 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021126, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Unauthorized absence over 30 consecutive days is a serious offense. E. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days), and Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00163

    Original file (ND02-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It clearly does not reflect my naval record and honor before the incident. 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: USNR (DEP) 940214 - 940412 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940413 Date of Discharge: 960313 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00011

    Original file (ND01-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It doesn't get you nowhere.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. Regret and remorse alone are no basis upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00710

    Original file (ND04-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980514: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981001: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981021 Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at Miami, FL.981026: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2315, 981026 (228 days/apprehended).981027: Summary Court-Martial. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01375

    Original file (ND03-01375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01375 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030813. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Issue 1: Mandatory processing for separation is required for sailors who abuse illegal drugs.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00171

    Original file (ND01-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    But yet I think still of my discharge. 961205: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 961219: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00629

    Original file (ND99-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason I have for leaving without permission and missing ships movement, was my wife had just had a baby, I was approved for 14 days leave. 860929: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.860929: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00358

    Original file (ND02-00358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB requested the Applicant provide pertinent documentation to the Board for review, if available. The NDRB received no response from Applicant to this request. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...