Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00159
Original file (ND02-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DPSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00159

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 011205, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed the Disabled American Veterans as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020731. 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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. I would like to receive an upgrade to an Honorable Discharge because I would like to serve my country once again. I would also like to assist others in any way I can with values I have learned while serving in the US Navy. I believe that I would also be able to gain my benefits back to assist in continuing my education.

 2. Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth by the appellant as follows; an upgrade of the current General Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable.

A review of the record reflects that the FSM served in the United States Navy from November 8, 1994 to November 14, 1997 at which time she received the current discharge by reason of misconduct.

Of record are character reference statements attesting to the FSM's good character while on active duty, reflecting on her as a hardworking and trustworthy individual who could be depended upon to complete assigned tasks in a timely and professional manner.

On entry the FSM was a young and impressionable teenager, who entered active duty and did well at first. For whatever reason, whether she was mis-guided by her peers, or still maintained a level of immateriality, she committed the inappropriate act(s) and has been punished for her actions. A punishment that her co-workers apparently believe to have been to harsh. The FSM had one circumstance of misconduct in comparison to her outstanding three years of military service. We believe that an award of an Honorable discharge would not bring about the demise of the good order of the United States Navy and request that equitable relief is provided. In addition, the SECNAVINST provides for the definition of an Honorable discharge and what is allowable for that character to still be authorized. We believe the FSM did at the time of discharge and does still meet that criteria. We ask for the Board's careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the applicant. Respectfully,


Documentation

 In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of applicant's DD Form 214
Character reference dated October 24 1997
Copy of Memorandum dated October 24, 1997
Copy of statement of support dated October 24, 1997
Copy of statement of support dated October 22, 1997

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940715 - 941107  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941108               Date of Discharge: 971114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 79

 Highest Rate: Unknown

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: JMU, 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 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971114:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971114 with a 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).

Issue 1: The applicant states, her discharge was based on one circumstance of misconduct in comparison to her outstanding three years of military service. Due to the lack of documentation in the applicant’s service record as well as the lack of documentation provided by the applicant for consideration by the Board, there is no evidence available to support a change in characterization. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the purpose of reenlistment as requested by the applicant, furthermore, the Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for post service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants re-characterization based upon the issue of obtaining Veteran’s benefits. Regulations limits NDRB review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Request for relief denied.

The following is provided for the applicant’s information. T he NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the re-characterization 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, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based upon post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide any post service 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.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, 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 | ND99-01041

    Original file (ND99-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues (verbatim) Submitted by DAV:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we find the FSM is seeking an upgrade in her discharge to General.The FSM contends that being separated from her family caused a severe amount of stress on her. The FSM was undergoing mitigating circumstances that caused her to attempt suicide. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00716

    Original file (ND02-00716.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00716 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020425, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I told her that I had my entire leave papers because I had to have Limited Duty at PSD sign me out for leave because there was no one at the command that had the authority to do so. (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01150

    Original file (ND01-01150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01150 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010830, 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’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00355

    Original file (ND02-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please reevaluate my discharge.After review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, the FSM request to have his discharge upgraded from General Under Honorable Conditions to one of Honorable.As the FSM service organization, it is our contention that the General discharge awarded to the FSM is unjust due to the untimely persecution of the FSM. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00752

    Original file (ND00-00752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. 971124: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult consulted 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.971231: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00213

    Original file (ND00-00213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.971117: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by service record entries, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398

    Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). ]990517: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00280

    Original file (ND00-00280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980304 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00142

    Original file (ND03-00142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) One page from Applicant’s service record (2) Statement from Applicant, dated June 15, 2003 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19990323 – 19990419 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19990420 Date of Discharge: 20000320...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00856

    Original file (ND02-00856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was led to believe this by a representative of the United States Military. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from L_ M_, undated Letter from Applicant, unsigned and undatedLetter from a Member of Congress, dated June 19, 2000Letter to Member, U.S. House of Representatives from National Personnel Records Center, dated June 9, 2000 Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF...