Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00050
Original file (ND02-00050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00050

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 011002, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020620. 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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. I now realize that doing whatever I could to get out of the Navy was the biggest mistake I ever made. I was very young minded and afraid of the six month cruise that we were going to be departing for. I do understand this is no excuse for my behavior but I am now ready to begin my career with the Detroit Police Department. Because of my discharge I am not eligible to join until my discharge is upgraded. I do now understand that there are better ways to resolve a problem and have been counseled on many coping skills for situations that I put myself in and don't know how to handle them when everything doesn't seem easy or what I expected. I do ask that my discharge be upgraded so that I can peruse my career choice and not have this other than honorable discharge haunt me for the rest of my life.
Thank You!

 Documentation
Only the service record was reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Applicant's medical record could not be located.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     951122 - 951205  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951206               Date of Discharge: 970512

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 10                        AFQT: 31

 Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.5 (2)     Behavior: 2.0 (2)                 OTA: 2.59 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970307:  Page 4 (NAVPERS 1070/604 – Awards) listed NJP.

970327:  Page 4 (NAVPERS 1070/604 – Awards) listed NJP.



ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD.
THERE WERE NO ENTRIES IN SERVICE RECORD ON THE "PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT", EXCEPT FOR 2 NJP’S LISTED ON PAGE 4. AN INQUIRY TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION WAS RETURNED AS "UNDELIVERABLE" AND APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970512 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: The Board found that the applicant’s age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment. While she may feel that her youth was a factor that contributed to her actions, by her own admission “doing whatever I could to get out of the Navy…I was very young minded and afraid of going on a six month cruise…”, her behavior was in willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that she was unfit for further service. The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The record is devoid of further evidence that the applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country. 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 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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of her 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 her discharge. She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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 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 | 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01129

    Original file (ND01-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Previous DD Form 214...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00699

    Original file (ND00-00699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION after this occurred I then got dressed and went to the quarter masters desk and asked them to call base security. The NDRB found this issue non decisional.

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00166

    Original file (ND03-00166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00166 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I know that my records will be reviewed carefully to determine whether my request will be granted or denied.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00159

    Original file (ND03-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, relief is denied.The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00460

    Original file (ND02-00460.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00460 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00789

    Original file (ND02-00789.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00789 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020513, 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 & RE-1. During the time I was attending my C school, I became aware of the fact that four months prior to our marriage, R_ had become the victim of sexual assault. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01120

    Original file (ND03-01120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Applicant's service record, the Board found that the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as other than honorable was proper and equitable. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. 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...