Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00358
Original file (ND02-00358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00358

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020130, 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 021121. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. To Whom It May Concern:

I understand that the actions taken against me by the U.S. Navy ultimately leading up to my discharge, were proper and warranted. The situation and circumstance that lead to this were caused by the irresponsible and immature decisions that I took as a young man.

I understand now the repercussions of my actions. I have become a loving husband and father as well as a responsible adult. I wish to receive an honorable discharge, so that I can receive my G.I. Bill and VA benefits , ultimately benefiting my wife and young son.

I thank you for your time and for you reading this and the enclosed documents. Thank you,

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character reference dated June 27, 2001
Character reference dated July 2, 2001
Character referenc e dated July 2, 2001
Character reference dated July 9, 2001
Character reference dated September 16, 2001
Character reference, undated
Character reference dated June 30, 2001
Character reference dated July 1, 2001
Character reference dated June 28, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950126 - 950313  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950314               Date of Discharge: 970313

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: OSSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.67 (3)    Behavior: 1.67 (3)                OTA: 2 .28

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 57

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961128:  Applicant to unauthorized absence.

961202:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

961228:  Applicant declared a deserter from USS NORMANDY since 0710, 961228.

970114:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

970121:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

970124:  Applicant surrendered to military authorities 1600, 970124 and returned to military control onboard USS NORMANDY 0058, 970129.

970131:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Unauthorized absence.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87 (2 specs):
         Specifications: Missing ship's movement.
         Finding: to Charge I and II and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $600.60, confinement for 30 days, reduction to OSSR.
         CA action 970131: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

970313:  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 3630605.

Note: The Applicant’s separation package is missing from the service record. The
NDRB requested the Applicant provide pertinent documentation to the Board for
review, if available. The NDRB received no response from Applicant to this request.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 970313 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).

 Issue 1: 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, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for a characterization of service upgrade, based on post-service conduct. The evidence submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his conduct while on active duty. An upgrade based on post-service conduct is not warranted. Relief denied.

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. 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 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 " afls14.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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00877

    Original file (ND02-00877.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My command told me there was no way that I could be reassigned. 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’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00899

    Original file (ND01-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970313: Applicant to confinement.970411: Applicant from confinement. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Specification: Missed ship's movement on 7Oct96. 971027: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00256

    Original file (ND03-00256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00256 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021126, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Unauthorized absence over 30 consecutive days is a serious offense. E. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days), and Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01374

    Original file (ND03-01374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. NOT REQUIRED FOR COSO] 990926: 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.990926: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult, elected to waive all rights except the right to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00549

    Original file (ND03-00549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 950710: Applicant ordered to active duty.970429: Applicant missed ship’s movement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980430 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00088

    Original file (ND00-00088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000720. My discharge was improper because it was based on one incident that happened within 52 months of "honorable" service. The fact that the discharge was based on one incident in 52 months of service does not make the discharge improper, as the applicant suggests in issue 2.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00710

    Original file (ND04-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980514: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981001: Applicant missed ship’s movement.981021 Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at Miami, FL.981026: Applicant from unauthorized absence 2315, 981026 (228 days/apprehended).981027: Summary Court-Martial. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00284

    Original file (ND00-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bill, the applicant would need not only an Honorable discharge but also 36 months of active service to receive benefits. The applicant is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00375

    Original file (ND00-00375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 981103: Memorandum from Command Chaplain stating applicant made a public statement to him claiming he is bisexual.981116: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.981116: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...