Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00802
Original file (ND02-00802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SKSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00802

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Oklahoma City, Ok. 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) does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington, DC Area. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Subsequent to the application for review the Applicant obtained representation by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030214. 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. USS SANDLANCE, SSN 660, Fast attack submarine. Homeport SUBRON FOUR in Charleston, S.C. We were understaffed (Supply Dept) and returning from a seven month underway (UNITAS 32). The job to put up the parts was a near impossibility. There was an auxiliary tank under the torpedo room, full of parts (6.5 months) of supplies were packed in the AUX-TANK. The AUX-TANK measured about 40' long, 10' wide and 6' in height, with 10's of thousands of parts in it, mostly small items like o-rings and screws. These parts were all in orange supply bags. I was given an ultimatum by my Chief SKC/SS V_. The order was given by the Supply Ensign about 3 weeks before a major supply inspection, before arriving in Charleston. We were still underway and exhausted from 7 months at sea. I worked day and night putting up parts and cross-referencing all the inventory as well as the mountain of paper work that followed each part, on top of even inputting all parts into the computer. The entire process is to maintain the highest validity of our inventory. It’s a long process. A submariners day is only 18 hrs, broken up into 6 hrs for duty (helmsman/planesman), 6 hrs to tend to ship supply business and 6 hrs to eat/sleep. My sleep time was the time I had to accomplish this gargantuan task. I went many days without sleep. The pressure to complete this task was mounting. Out of desperation, I had some of the parts stowed, so I may put them up after the pre-inventory/cross referencing meeting the Chief and I had, at this point I'd properly stowed 99.8% of all the parts in the AUX-TANK. I still had time to put up the few parts that were left after the meeting. I had everything under control and I knew it. I was told again that I would be in serious trouble if the job wasn't completed. I was scared and undermanned. I was harassed everyday to complete the stowage of materials, even though I was pulling 36 hours shifts to complete the job and conduct normal ship business and duty. I know I was given a job that was out of reach, but I told myself, I am going to do it and I did it! I told my Chief the job was complete to get him off my back at the meeting as we cross referenced hundreds of parts with 100% validity. When a part didn't cross-reference and I recognized the part, I told him I had a few more parts to put up. He stormed down to the AUX-TANK, I followed and showed him the parts. I told him I needed to research these parts more to properly stow them in their inventory lockers. I was written up immediately. I was supposed to get a small reprimand, considering my history of dedication and awards. The Captains Mast began and following many petty officers speaking to the captain about my integrity and dedication, he concluded by firing me and kicked my out of the Navy. He disqualified me submarines. I was stripped of my honor and dedication and a newly aquired rank of petty officer 3 rd class. I was devastated. The "Chief of the Boat" didn't like me as many of the chiefs told me and he was responsible for this great injustice. He even laughed after the Captains Mast and stated "I told you I would get you!" Still at sea we were a few days from pulling into Charleston Harbor. I was restricted to the boat for 18 days and sent to a minimum security brig for 30 more days to await my discharge paperwork. Prior to this 7 month underway, we had an inspection that was carried out by the big brass of SUBRON 4. The chief and I was the Supply Dept. of SSN-660 SANDLANCE. We worked 20 days hour days to achieve this distinction. We were awarded with the highest supply inspection score of the SUBRON 4 Fleet a 98.6% validity rate, and several more awards for my showing of seniority and mastery of being a Store Keeper, even though I was only a seaman. I graduated at near the top of SUB School and even was awarded my dolphins for my quick qualification and complete understandability of every function of the submarine. I passed my qualification verbal and written test the first time around. A battery of verbal and written test administered by the officers and chiefs. To the crew this means that I am able to save their lives, no matter what the emergency is fire/flooding. I would be able to turn on or shut down any system anywhere in the submarine, whatever necessary! I attained a milestone and was well respected by the crew. When it came to duty underway (helmsman or planesman), the captain always chose me to do special OP's (torpedo evasion/emergency blow ect…) even if I was sleeping, they would get me up. I was awarded a medal for my participation in the Gulf War (we were there many months before and after the war). I am a veteran of war and a proud submariner of the United States Navy. To be given an "other than honorable" discharge and labeled a serious offender for not stowing a few parts doesn't constitute this great injustice. I pray that you find this label harsh as well. If I were given the chance again to enter the submarine fleet as a well trained submariner that I am, I would do it in a second. Please find that the only other alternative, to redeem my honor, respect and integrity and sacrifice that I did for my beloved United States of America is to be honorable discharged. Thank you for your sacrifice in time of war and god bless our military and America.

2. VFW Issue: We concur with the Applicant contention that his discharge be upgraded. We refer the case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the Applicant's discharge be reviewed for upgrading his discharge from other than honorable to general under honorable conditions.

 Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Courier Authorization Certificate
Copy of Submarine Qualification Certificate
Copies of Letters of Commendation (2)
Certificate of Completion (Basic Enlisted Submarine Course)
Copies of Submarine Qualification/Requalification Card (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890929 - 900207  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900208               Date of Discharge: 920825

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: GED +1                    AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: SKSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (3)    Behavior: 3.33 (3)                OTA : 3.33

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: LOC (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

911202:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
         Award: 18 days restriction to the limits of the USS SAND LANCE (SSN 660). No indication of appeal in the record.

911202:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failed to return to the ship before expiration of liberty on 911123.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920701:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty in that he (Applicant) willfully failed to complete the processing, receipt and stowage of repaired parts, violation of UCMJ Article 107: Making a false statement with intent to deceive in that he stated that all repair parts had been stowed which was totally false and was known by him (Applicant) to be false.
         Award: Restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
920702:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by commission of a serious offense (two counts).
920702:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.
920713:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by commission of a serious offense (two counts). Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): [SKSA H_ (Applicant’s) performance has declined to below average. He requires significant supervision to ensure that assigned duties are completed in a correct and timely manner. He demonstrated the ability to perform at a much higher level but routinely failed to achieve this level of performance. In view of the serious nature of SKSA H_ (Applicant’s) violation of the UCMJ and his overall below average performance, I recommend that his discharge be characterized as Other than Honorable.]

920811:  BUPERS 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 920825 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).

 Issues 1: The Board’s charter limits its 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 proper and equitable.

The Applicant believes his discharge was too harsh. However, the Applicant ’ s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. The receipt of letter ’ s of commendation and favorable performance evaluations during the Applicant’s enlistment, do not guarantee an honorable discharge. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure of that expected of a sailor. The Applicant ’ s service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions due to his own misconduct, which resulted in award of non-judicial punishment on two occasions for violations of the UCMJ. 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.

 The following is provided for the Applicant’s information: T here 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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, 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 | ND03-01234

    Original file (ND03-01234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00772

    Original file (ND99-00772.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00772 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990514, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to administrative. Although you must have an Honorable Discharge to receive the benefits, I believe that I did have honorable service for 3 1/2 of my 4 years in the Navy. Although you must have an Honorable Discharge to receive the benefits, I believe...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00876

    Original file (ND03-00876.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-LISR, USN Docket No. ND03-00876 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030422. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01392

    Original file (ND03-01392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. MY LEAVE CHIT WAS DATED FOR ME TO TAKE A LEAVE ON 16 DECEMBER 2000 THROUGH 15 JANUARY 2001 AT 1730. WHEN WE RETURNED FROM UNDERWAY, THE MASTER AT ARMS CAME UP TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN AUTHORIZE TO TAKE LEAVE.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00585

    Original file (ND01-00585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00585 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010327, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. P: Compazine 10 mg___, Bedrest for 24 hours.910215: A: Motion sickness. Applicant's statement dated July 18, 1991 found in service record.910820: Commanding officer recommended discharge honorable by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government due to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00832

    Original file (ND03-00832.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00832 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030410. I knew if I could make it through Marine boot camp, Navy boot camp would be much easier And this is where my troubles began. Is this what the Navy is becoming?

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00813

    Original file (ND00-00813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    service in the U.S. Navy. Please view my military records, I was an outstanding submarine sailor for 12 years. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00111

    Original file (MD00-00111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00111 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991027, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. My family and friends at home were questioned by the investigators concerning my charges back on base. When we arrived back home I started the process by calling and requesting the form DD293 be mailed to me as soon as possible.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00104

    Original file (ND01-00104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00104 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001030, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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’s first issue states that his discharge was inequitable since it was based on “two isolated incidents, neither of which were...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01156

    Original file (ND99-01156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.980209: Mental Health Dept, Naval Ambulatory Care Center, Groton, CT: CHIEF COMPLAINT: Pt reported to his command in January 198 that he was having suicidal thoughts and he was transferred TAD to Group 2 for further assessment. Recommendation made at that time that he continue aboard the USS OKLAHOMA CITY and further recommended that pt seek further mental health eval should his anxiety continue after the boat transferred to Norfolk. Additionally,...