Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00054
Original file (ND02-00054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMSAA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00054

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 personal appearance discharge review. The applicant listed the American Legion as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. (Equity Issue) This former member avers that he regrets his misconduct of record, has learned from his mistakes and would now like to reenter the military. On this basis, he petitions the Board’s relief.

2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890921 - 890925  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890926               Date of Discharge: 920320

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: AMSAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (2)    Behavior: 3.30 (2)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, BER, JMU, SASM with Bronze Star, NDSM, SSDR (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900104:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Fail to obey lawful order issued by CO, RTC, San Diego on 6Dec89 by wrongfully wearing civilian clothes, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Unlawfully strike AR in the left eye with fist on 6Dec89, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly on 6Dec89.
         Award: Forfeiture of $323 per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
900104:  Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Naval Training Center, San Diego: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey other lawful written order, assault, disorderly conduct and drunkenness.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

910610:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from unit on 0730-1230, 14May91, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.
         Award: Forfeiture of 1/2 pay per month for 2 months, confinement on bread and water for 3 days, reduction to AMSAR Forfeiture and reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
911017:  Retention Warning from Air Anti-Submarine Squadron 31: Advised of deficiency (Absence from unit and failure to obey a lawful order.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920204:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobeying a senior petty officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order.
         Award: Forfeiture of $440 for 2 months, oral reprimand, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AMSAA. No indication of appeal in the record.
920216:  Air Anti-Submarine Squadron 31 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three nonjudicial punishments under your current enlistment.
920217:          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 copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
920224:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920304:  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 920320 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 states that the applicant regrets his misconduct, learned from his mistakes and now would like to reenter the service. His remorse and desire to return to the Naval Service are not reasons for which the Board will grant relief. The applicant failed to demonstrate that there was an impropriety or inequity in the discharge he received or that he is a person of good character and conduct and deserves an upgrade based on his post-service conduct. Accordingly, relief is denied.

Issue 2 sites the applicant’s post-service conduct as reason to upgrade his discharge characterization. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which allows an unfavorable discharge to 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 occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. No such error occurred in this case. 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 that he is a person of good character and conduct, deserving of an upgrade to his discharge characterization. The Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided that an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00663

    Original file (ND03-00663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of the application.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00012

    Original file (ND99-00012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.911216: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny or wrongful appropriation.Award: Oral reprimand, forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to MS3. By a vote of 2 to 1, the board recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Regardless of his past service, the serious nature of the UCMJ violations that MS3 (applicant's) has committed certainly merits characterization of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00213

    Original file (ND02-00213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 961119 Date of Discharge: 001229 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 01 11 Inactive: None No indication of appeal.001215: Vacate suspended reduction to AMSAN awarded at CO's NJP dated 11 Dec 00 due to continued misconduct.001220: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00022

    Original file (ND99-00022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920128: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willfully disobey a commissioned officer on 911214, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Willfully disobey a lawful order from superior Chief Petty Officer on 911214. 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 found this issue to be without merit. At this time the applicant has...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00407

    Original file (ND99-00407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application. 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. During the list...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00994

    Original file (ND03-00994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT Ex- ND0300994 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00535

    Original file (ND04-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00535 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19920629 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00682

    Original file (ND00-00682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850710 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00495

    Original file (ND01-00495.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: 921123 Date of Discharge: 940628 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 07 06 Inactive: None I would be very grateful, if the board would change my discharge status to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00940

    Original file (ND04-00940.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00940 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040520. 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).Issues 1-2: There is no evidence in the official record, nor did the Applicant provide any certifiable documentation that he was not afforded representation or that there existed an impropriety during nonjudicial...