Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00052
Original file (ND02-00052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00052

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 011004, 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 020815. 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 would like to have my discharge upgraded as well as my RE Code, I believe that I have grown in the time I have been out of the service. I would like the opportunity to look back with a bit of pride. I may never go back, but I want a bit of pride to go back with the memories. Sincerely

 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)     940324 - 940403  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940404               Date of Discharge: 960805

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: MSSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.80 (1)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: JMU, HSM, CGSOSR, NDSM, OSR

 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 :

950609:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (8 specs): (1-7) Failing to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully using government telephone services for other than official government business or purposes, (8) Dereliction of duty in that she willfully failed to remain at the front desk of BOQ, as it was her duty to do and wrongfully entered another office and used government telephone services for other than official government business or purposes.
         Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to MSSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
950609:  Retention Warning from U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Advised of deficiency (Seven specifications of fail to obey a lawful order by making unauthorized phone calls on government phones and one specification of dereliction of duty.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

950728:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey a lawful order by wrongfully fraternizing with a Cuban migrant, to wit: accepting $20.00 to purchase some film from the Navy Exchange on 12Jun95.
         Award: Forfeiture of $1000 per month for 10 months, extra duty for 1400 days, oral reprimand, reduction to MSSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
950728:  Retention Warning from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Advised of deficiency (Disobey a lawful order by wrongfully fraternizing with a Cuban migrant.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

960530:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Falsely pretend to GTS by using other persons pin numbers between Mar96 and 11Apr96, to wit: telephone services, a value of about $679.90.
         Award: Forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
960604:  U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion FORTY notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ, in current enlistment.
960604:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
960624:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

960725:  BUPERS 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 960805 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).

The Board found the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified her for enlistment. While she may feel her immaturity was a factor that contributed to her actions, the record clearly reflects her willful disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated she was unfit for further service. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief on this basis is denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. 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.

The following is provided for the benefit of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. 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. Relief not warranted.


 The Applicant is reminded that the period of eligibility for a personal appearance hearing is 15 years from the date of discharge. The application package must be submitted to the NDRB prior to the expiration of the 15 year period. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.



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 – 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 | ND99-01163

    Original file (ND99-01163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After careful consideration, I determined that it was necessary to discharge MSSR (applicant) from the Naval service with a characterization of General. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 970221 General (under Honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01444

    Original file (ND03-01444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01444 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. I WAS TOLD TO REPORT CAPTAIN MASS AND HE INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP 3 TIMES AND THAT IT SHOWS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND HE RECOMMEND THAT I BE DISCHARGED UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00313

    Original file (ND99-00313.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: USNR (DEP) 940726 - 950717 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950718 Date of Discharge: 960807 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 00 20 Inactive: None PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT...

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00102

    Original file (ND99-00102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.850831: Commanding Officer USS MOBILE (LKA 115) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct- pattern – frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities as evidenced by five CO NJP's, misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by CO's NJP dated 24 Apr 85, and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO's NJP's dated 25...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00663

    Original file (ND99-00663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Forfeiture of $347.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to MSSA. 860224: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a drug abuse and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. 860716: Commanding officer recommended discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00230

    Original file (ND01-00230.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. This office, acting as counsel, has reviewed the naval records of the above named applicant and respectfully submits them for consideration in accordance with Department of Defense Directive Number 1332.28 E4.3 EQUITY In the course of a discharge review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00745

    Original file (ND99-00745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.860213: Retention Warning from USS YORKTOWN: Advised of deficiency (Unsatisfactory personal and military behavior demonstrated by excessive use of alcohol, violation of curfew, liberty, and attempted jumping ship from USS Yellowstone to USS Yorktown), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.860725: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00196

    Original file (ND01-00196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 961030: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00055

    Original file (ND00-00055.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 (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. Unfortunately, the NDRB is under no obligation to upgrade a discharge because the ex-member was young, stupid and immature, at the time of his service, or because the member wants a discharge he can proudly display. The NDRB reviews the...