Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00015
Original file (ND02-00015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FA, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00015

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government. 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 020604. 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 (verbatim)

1. I received a misconduct on my DD 214 because of my arrest in Sept 97. I was arrested for having a firearm in my vehicle from civilian police officers. I was then wrongfully accused and had charges dropped, to not guilty months later cause in fact the fire arm does belong to me and is registered to me. Therefore I do not have a criminal record and I did however finish my enlistment. I was given General (under Honorable conditions) because my command was under the impression that my charges was a felony and a felony is a sign of misconduct but I have no felonies or misdemeanors. My case was ended as me being not guilty.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Statement from applicant
Copy of DD Form 214
Police record check dated August 29, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940922 - 950228  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950301               Date of Discharge: 980311

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 11 GED           AFQT: 43

 Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (5)    Behavior: 2.80 (5)                OTA: 3 .20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

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 :

970421:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FA. No indication of appeal in the record.
980311:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged 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 980311 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’s issue states that a civil fire arms possession charge formed the basis for his separation. However, the applicant’s service record shows the applicant was found guilty at NJP of violation of UCMJ Article 121 (Larceny). The Board noted the discharge package is missing, and absent additional information the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of government affairs. The applicant provided no documentation that demonstrates that the discharge was improper or inequitable. Relief is not warranted.
The applicant requested that the reason for his discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The applicant’s service was marred by his misconduct. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his positive community service, and employment history. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is recommended .


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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00053

    Original file (ND02-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Job reference dated September 20, 2001 Copy of police record check Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 Applicant's microfiche service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950309 - 950913 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950914 Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01193

    Original file (ND02-01193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01193 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Very Respectfully, (Signed by Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's letter to the Board, undated Copy of DD Form 214 Puerto Rico Police Record, dated 29 July 2002 PART II -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01068

    Original file (ND02-01068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully; M_ J. D_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 BCNR's ltr, dtd Jun 28, 2002, to the Applicant advising him to petition the NDRB Applicant's petition (DD Form 149) to BCNR, dtd May 24, 2002 Memo For Record, dtd Nov 14, 2001, from TPU to Performance Division, PSD Superior Court of State of Delaware count documents (12 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00083

    Original file (ND03-00083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. 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, D, and E).Issue 1. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00905

    Original file (ND00-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00905 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The United States Navy has been good to me and again, I am very proud to have served for such a great organization. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01374

    Original file (ND03-01374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. NOT REQUIRED FOR COSO] 990926: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.990926: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights except the right to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00516

    Original file (ND99-00516.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: 960813 Date of Discharge: 980720 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 08 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00865

    Original file (ND03-00865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00865 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.