Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00833
Original file (ND02-00833.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-AEAN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00833

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020520, 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 representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030221. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE , authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630300.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as submitted

 1. My discharge was inequitable because no actions were taken to remedy the situation prior to the discharge. I.E. no restriction or other disciplinary actions were taken or even tried prior to discharge.
Personnel informed me that if I did not get into trouble within 6 months after discharge then I could get my discharge upgraded
I have attempted to better myself in the intervening time, and hope that it will be taken into consideration.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant 's DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Unofficial transcript

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     951128 - 951213  COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951214               Date of Discharge: 971008

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 09 25
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 86
Highest Rate: AEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 1.33 (3)    Behavior: 1.00 (3)                OTA: 1.72

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630300.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960220:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unpaid traffic citation for speeding, 12/95, Chesterton, IN. Fine paid 22 December 1995 - verified by receipt from Clerk of Circuit and County Courts, Porter County, Valparaiso, IN), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

970808:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Performance of assigned tasks and duties is in a manner that is not contributory to unit readiness and/or mission accomplishment, to wit: (a) PRT failure, March 1997 (b) dress white inspection failure, March 1997 (c) marginal uniform appearance and (d) with respect to 97JUN15 Enlisted Performance Evaluation a grade of 1.0/below standards in "military bearing/character," retention status of "not recommended" and a promotion recommendation of "significant problems"), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.         

970916:  Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to failure to perform duty assignment satisfactorily. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): Airman ( Applicant ) has proven to be an administrative and operational burden to the command. His professional development has not progressed and his personal behavior has proven to be beyond remediation, as evidenced by his two below average performance evaluations. His personality traits and appearance reflect an individual ill suited for military service.
970918:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance as evidenced by two enlisted performance evaluations with unsatisfactory marks for professional expertise and military bearing/character of 1.0.
970918:  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.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 971008 under honorable conditions (general) by reason of unsatisfactory performance (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 received three enlisted performance evaluations with unsatisfactory marks for military bearing/character of 1.0 . The Applicant’s average marks were below the standard required for an honorable characterization of service. The Board presumed that the Applicant violated his retention warning issued on 970808. No other disciplinary or other prerequisites are required to process a sailor for administrative separation under honorable conditions (general) for unsatisfactory performance. Relief denied.

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630300, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

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 | ND00-00301

    Original file (ND00-00301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 75 Highest Rate: AZ3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.30 (6) Behavior: 2.40 (7) OTA: 3.08 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-156 (formerly...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00514

    Original file (ND99-00514.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With new supporting documentation and issues, a second documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 991208 based on the Board’s own motion. 910312: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under general (under honorable conditions) by reason of unsatisfactory performance as evidenced by enlisted performance evaluation reports for the periods 890906 to 891130; 900201 to 900228, and 900201 to 910121.910312: Applicant advised of his rights and having...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01052

    Original file (ND00-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A). The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00551

    Original file (MD00-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (4) Letter from applicant (6pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 921219 - 930524 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930525 Date of Discharge: 971008 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 04 04 14 Inactive: None Age...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01154

    Original file (ND02-01154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 23 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 49 Highest Rate: BM2 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.16 (6) Behavior: 2.83 (6) OTA: 2.93 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NEM, SSDR, Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/EXPIRATION OF TERM OF ENLISTMENT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01026

    Original file (MD03-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01026 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00738

    Original file (ND00-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The reason shall change to: Secretarial Authority.The applicant’s first issue states: “Over 95% of my service record is honorable and so warrants an upgrade to honorable. I received an Honorable discharge and a good conduct medal from my previous command after 4 years of service.” As every enlistment results in a discharge for that period alone, the NDRB found the applicant’s low overall performance, 1.56, and misconduct, violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 107, in his last enlistment...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212

    Original file (ND99-01212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01212 (4)

    Original file (ND99-01212 (4).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In lieu of the facts, ADAN_____(applicant) is being separated from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable) discharge. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981211 with a general (under honorable conditions) for unsatisfactory performance (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was improper (C and D).The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00915

    Original file (MD01-00915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am requesting that a change be made to the characterization of my discharge due to the fact that I left my unit in the face of injustice. 970606: Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. The Board found no evidence of racism against the applicant in a review of his service records.