Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00629
Original file (ND02-00629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00629

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020404, 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 030116. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 l. Block 8 contained the following statement: "See attached documents," and the attachment is a letter from the Applicant's mother to congressman dated March 25, 2001, which states the following:

 March 25, 2001

Dear Congressman D_ S_,

Enclosed are papers that I have submitted to my son's Commanding Officer in the past when I was trying to get him released from the US Navy last year. At first I did not set out to have him discharged but after finding absolutely no concern for my son's well being I found that it would be necessary to have him released in order to "save his life." I think you will realize what my concerns were after you have read some of the enclosed papers.

I apologize for the amount of time that has gone by since I received these papers from your office in February. But the honest truth is that the physiological effect the entire Navel experience that my son has had has been so traumatic that it has taken me this long just to get him to look at the papers your office sent me. As you can see, they are only "basically" filled out, however I feel that all the enclosed will speak for themselves.

You will come to realize, my son was not well both physically or mentally and yet no one was following through with taken the precautionary measures to help him. You will also see that a grave injustice was done on his form of release from the US Navy. He clearly should have been given a Medical discharge but instead was given an Other Than Honorable. At this point I only want to see that taken off his record and his discharge changed to at least a General Discharge.

M_ (Applicant) was discharged on April, 4, 2000. However on April 26, 2000 the US Navy sent the local county sheriff to arrest him. Imagine the trauma on top of what he experienced while in the Navy to now being handcuffed and told that they were taking him away even though he was already discharge! Please help me put an end to the nightmare my only child has experienced and get his discharge changed.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in my son's dealings with the US Navy. He has requested on several occasions but has as yet received his W-2 for 1999 and he has of yet received it for 2000. You should well be aware of the tax problems this is causing for him. It isn't as if they do not have a forwarding address for my son as you can plainly see by his records they know exactly where his is.....HOME!

I truly appreciate all the help you are offering at this point. I am still willing to meet with you at any point in setting justice done for my son. You need only contact my home phone number: xxx-xxx-xxxx, as your office has already done after receiving my most recent correspondence to you.

Sincerely, (Signed by the Applicant's mother, R- T_)
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant 's mother to congressman dated March 25, 2001.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     990111 - 990620  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990621               Date of Discharge: 000404

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 09 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 32

*No Marks Found in the service record.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000214:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0630, 000214.

 000317:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1000, 000317 (32 days/surrendered).
000327:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 83: Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation, violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
         Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.
000404:  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.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 000404 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. The Board found no basis for the claim that the Applicant should have been discharged for medical reasons. The Applicant was released to full duty and was diagnosed as being competent for his actions upon release from psychiatric inpatient treatment on 000327. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for the commission of serious offenses. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. Relief denied.

 The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. This does not include review of pay problems, or evaluation of an impropriety or inequity concerning the alleged arrest of the Applicant at the Navy’s request.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident 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. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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 28, effective
30 Mar 00 until 29 Aug 00, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | ND03-00065

    Original file (ND03-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00411

    Original file (ND04-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION (Attached is the completion of Impact class Document 2. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00840

    Original file (ND04-00840.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00322

    Original file (ND00-00322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00322 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000112, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01121

    Original file (ND02-01121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, the applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00534

    Original file (ND02-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00534 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020213, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge is improper because part of the charges for captain's mast was adultery even though my wife and I were legally separated and living apart at the time. No indication of appeal in the record.000331: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01335

    Original file (ND02-01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01335 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020923, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. I never received the transfer to MA school instead I was shipped back to the USS Elliot after my 6 month had past.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01068

    Original file (ND02-01068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully; M_ J. D_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 BCNR's ltr, dtd Jun 28, 2002, to the Applicant advising him to petition the NDRB Applicant's petition (DD Form 149) to BCNR, dtd May 24, 2002 Memo For Record, dtd Nov 14, 2001, from TPU to Performance Division, PSD Superior Court of State of Delaware count documents (12 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00552

    Original file (ND02-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00552 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I had not ever done drugs in the Navy. 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 that he served his country proudly for five years and never had any...

  • 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...