Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00803
Original file (ND02-00803.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EOCA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00803

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020513, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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 030515. 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

1. My discharge was inequitable because the necessary treatment wasn't available or offered. I have completed a treatment program as a civilian and wish to upgrade my discharge to obtain employment in certain job fields. Attached or certifications or achievements for considering discharge upgrade. The attached documents are examples of how I changed my life.

Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Certificate of completion of the Riverwood Chemical Dependency Educational Program
Certificate of completion of initial training requirements dated November 18, 1999
Letter of Commendation
Marriage certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940711 - 950706  ELS
 USNR (DEP)      950731 - 950816  COG
          Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950817               Date of Discharge: 980616

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: EOCN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                           Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

980424:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): (1) Absence without leave on 980417, (2) Absence without leave on 980418, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward a CPO, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Incapacitated for the proper performance of duties.
         Award: Forfeiture of $515 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to EOCA. No indication of appeal in the record.
980506:  Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Marianas directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Partial discharge package missing for service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 980616 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: Prior to the NDRB record review, the Applicant was informed that the documentation to support his administrative discharge was not filed with his service record, and the Board was unable to obtain this information from other sources. The Board requested the Applicant provide credible evidence that the contested discharge decision was wrong or unfair in order for the Applicant to overcome the presumption of regularity. The Applicant did not provide any documentation to assist the NDRB in making a determination other than to presume regularity that the discharge was proper and equitable as issued. Request denied.

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. After a complete review of the record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and that his evidence of post service accomplishments was found not to mitigate the misconduct for which he was discharged. 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 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00635

    Original file (ND00-00635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00635 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000421, 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: “The complainant refused to pursue charges and wouldn't cooperate with authorities.” The NDRB found this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01041

    Original file (ND99-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues (verbatim) Submitted by DAV:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we find the FSM is seeking an upgrade in her discharge to General.The FSM contends that being separated from her family caused a severe amount of stress on her. The FSM was undergoing mitigating circumstances that caused her to attempt suicide. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00394

    Original file (ND00-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00394 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the applicant states “m At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01048

    Original file (ND01-01048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant introduced no issues for the Board to consider. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00437

    Original file (ND03-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980305: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00245

    Original file (ND00-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981120 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01229

    Original file (ND02-01229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960916 - 970818 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970819 Date of Discharge: 990716 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 10 28 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00448

    Original file (ND99-00448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (incomplete discharge package) PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980515 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...