Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00408
Original file (ND02-00408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00408

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Applicant subsequently requested the State of Connecticut; Department of Veterans Affairs assist in acquiring a discharge upgrade.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021217. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I feel that this discharge was inequitable because there is no provision or plan for post-service activity.

2. This discharge was not based on an extreme case of pure neglect or persistent behavior.

3. The review of or granting of an upgrade will unhanded my development in civilian life. Although over 10 years has passed.

Request, for all medals & citation be awarded & entered into record for Navy Battle"E"citation.

Request, no record of receipt of citation awarded from Combatsubron 10.

4. Service rendered as active duty at time citation was awarded to command 89-90.


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Reference Letter from P_ J. G_, Veterans Service Officer
Thank You Letter from E_ L_, Child Care Director, June 1998
Copy of Certificate of Participation (1998-99 Policy Council), June 18, 1998
Copy of Certificate of Support (Head Start Program), June 11, 1998
Copy of Certificate of Completion (CDL"B" Training Program), October 2, 2001
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of History of Assignments
Copy of Enlistment Performance Record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880524 - 880714  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880715               Date of Discharge: 900114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.00 (2)    Behavior: 2.70 (2)                OTA : 2.90

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

891130:  Retention Warning from USS PARGO (SSN-650): Advised of deficiency (Failure to achieve required qualification goals, failure to muster at prescribed delinquent study.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900103   UA from 1200.

900103   Missed ships movement this date.

900504:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications) Absence without leave [3-4 Jan and 15 April 1990], violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing movement [3 Jan 1990].
         Award: Correctional Custody Unit for 25 days, forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to USS PARGO for 3 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

900507:  Retention Warning from [USS PARGO (SSN-650)]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 86 and 87), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900824:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

900830:  Commander, Submarine Squadron 10, 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 Applicant’s violation of UCMJ, Article 86, (Unauthorized Absence from 0730 April 15 to 0920 15 April 1990), for which Applicant received punishment at Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial Punishment on 4 May 1990; violation of UCMJ article 87, (Missing Ships Movement at 1430 3 Jan 90), and (Unauthorized Absence from 1300 3 January to 0800 4 January 1990), for which you received punishment at Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial Punishment on 4 May 1990; and violation of UCMJ article 92, (Dereliction of duty on 10 August 1990), for which Applicant received punishment at Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial Punishment on 24 August 1990.
900831:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
901025:  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 and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general under honorable conditions.

901126:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): FR T_ (Applicant) has been an administrative burden to the Navy and this command. He has no potential for further useful Naval Service.

901226:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge as under honorable conditions (General) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 900114 with a discharge characterization of under honorable conditions ( General) 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 feels that his discharge was inequitable because there is no provision or plan for post-service activity. 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for an upgrade based on post-service conduct. The documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate the misconduct for which he was discharged. Relief denied.

Issue 2: The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and numerous entries for deficiencies in his performance and derogatory comments in his enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

Issue 3: The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities or improving professional development in civilian life. The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of a discharge. In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity, nor did the Applicant provide mitigating post-service documentation to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade. Relief denied.

 Issue 4: The Board has no authority to address issues concerning award of medals, citations or other discrepancies in the Applicant’s service record. Your request has already been forwarded to the Navy Liaison Office, National Personnel Records Center.
Issue 5: Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore 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 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 " 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 | 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00617

    Original file (ND99-00617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)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 A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00739

    Original file (ND99-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from USS PREBLE (DDG 46): Advised of deficiency (Your conviction of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, Article 123: Forgery, and Article 134: False official pass offenses), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00012

    Original file (ND00-00012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSA, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910226 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00789

    Original file (ND01-00789.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. No indication of appeal in the record.890812: [USS TRUXTON (CGN-35)] 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 your six Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishments and two page 13's dated 861203 and 890321 and misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00364

    Original file (ND00-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although many mistakes were made during my enlistment from 1988-1991, I feel that overall my time served in the U.S. Navy is deserving of an honorable discharge.In 1989 I attended and completed search and rescue surface swimmer training in San Diego, California. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01046

    Original file (ND02-01046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. Applicant was advised, if separated, the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions 940820: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. Applicant discharged this date with General (Under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01347

    Original file (ND03-01347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01347 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030808. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 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 his application.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01512

    Original file (ND03-01512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. 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

  • 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,...