Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00248
Original file (ND02-00248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND02-00248

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020114, 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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I would like to get my discharge changed from other than honorable to Honorable due to the fact that it was only one incident in my naval service.

 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: 880526               Date of Discharge: 900629

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 01 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 46

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.80 (2)    Behavior: 2.30 (2)                OTA : 3.10

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 24

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880831:  Applicant briefed on Navy's policy on drug and alcohol abuse.

 900229:  Applicant screened by medical Officer and found not dependent on alcohol and drugs.
900414:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongful use of marijuana.
         Award: Forfeiture of $405.90 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AA. No indication of appeal in the record.
900514:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92.
         Specification: Dereliction of duty on 13May90.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 108:
         Specification: Negligently suffer equip on 13May90.
         Finding: to Charge I and II and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $450.00, confinement for 30 days, reduction to AR.
         CA action 900516: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

900510:  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. [Extracted from CO's message dated 26Jun90.]
900616:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. [Extracted from CO's message dated 26Jun90.]
900626:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse.

900629:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than 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 900629 under other than 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 contends he was discharged based on one isolated incident. His record indicates multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). Nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the Applicant on 14 April 1990 for violation of Article 112A, UCMJ, for wrongful use of marijuana. On 14 May 1990, the Applicant was found guilty at a Summary Court-Martial of violating Article 92, UCMJ, dereliction of duty and Article 108, UCMJ, negligent suffering of government equipment.

Drug abuse alone warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant was processed according to the rules and regulations existing at the time of his discharge. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief is not warranted.

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 denied.

 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 15560A), Change 8, effective
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01277

    Original file (ND03-01277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Honorable discharge dated 28 “After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidenced assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions to that of Honorable. In attest to his performance, the appellant has requested review of his recruiting excellent awards;...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00288

    Original file (ND01-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910312 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging to both the Sailor and his family members. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00051

    Original file (ND00-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. P: Level II treatment recommended.911125: Medical: Applicant reinterviewed and still concluded applicant is abusive of ETOH not dependent at this time. 920807: Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00158

    Original file (ND03-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900316: Retention Warning from Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, IL: Advised of deficiency (due to fraudulent entry as evidenced by failure to disclose your pre-service civil involvement – May 89 – burglary, possession of tools used in burglary; was sent to pre-trial intervention program and after completion of the program the charges were dropped), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00945

    Original file (ND99-00945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 22 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 50 Highest Rate: FR Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: NMA Behavior: NMA OTA: NMA Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: 52 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. No...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00951

    Original file (ND00-00951.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 Three pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880831 - 881113 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 881114 Date of Discharge: 890530 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 06 17 Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00635

    Original file (ND99-00635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 921229 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. Naval Military Personnel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00310

    Original file (ND99-00310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency Poor Military Performance and Unauthorized Absence, notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00913

    Original file (ND03-00913.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00873

    Original file (ND01-00873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00873 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010621, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 891203: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls10.jag.af.mil ".The names, and...