Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00882
Original file (ND02-00882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OS3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00882

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020606, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to 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 030501. 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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I am requesting a general discharge under honorable conditions due to the fact that I made a mistake. I understand the mistake I have made, but the fact remains that I made that one mistake & the only NJP in my six years in the navy. I request this discharge to further my life & put the past behind me.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     911218 - 920921  COG
         Active: USN                        920922 - 970624  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970625               Date of Discharge: 981203

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: OS2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.75 (4)    Behavior: 3.80 (4)                OTA: 3.75 (4.0 Evals)
 Performance: 3.80 (5)    Behavior: 2.60 (5)                OTA: 3.31 (5.0 Evals)
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC (3), NAVY"E" (3), GCM, NDSM, AFEM, SSDR (2), EPSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970625:  Reenlisted at Sea-Class-CPE, Seattle, WA for 6 years.

980624:  Applicant accepted deferred prosecution for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record dated 980309 to 981007].

981008:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of a controlled substance.
         Award: Forfeiture of $739.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 981203 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

 The Board disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that his discharge was based on one isolated incident in six years. The Applicant’s service record is marred by a civilian conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for illegal drug use, thus substantiating the pattern of misconduct for which he was separated. The DUI and drug abuse warranted processing for separation, normally under other than honorable conditions. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s 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 his discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied. However, the NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214 and corrected it to reflect the Applicant’s previous five years of honorable service
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. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence that the Applicant is living a drug free life style, 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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00063

    Original file (ND01-00063.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. "990506: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00829

    Original file (ND02-00829.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 001023 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01173

    Original file (ND03-01173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENTex-BMSA, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “I BELIEVE I WAS NOT GIVEN THE PROPER ADVISE ABOUT MY CASE BY MY COMMAND.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member’s 4 & 1) PART II - SUMMARY...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00634

    Original file (ND99-00634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. [EXTRACTED FROM REPORT AND DISPOSITION OF OFFENSE(S) (NAVPERS 1626/7]980126: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishment of 2 Feb 96 for violation of UCMJ - Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00286

    Original file (ND01-00286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00286 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010109, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 930716 - 950713 HON USN 891113 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01118

    Original file (ND02-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A day later, on August 17, I was told by legal (PO1 S_) in TPU to sign a new admin sep notice but this time the reason was "PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT" (MILPERSMAN 1910-140) therefore not entitled to sep. pay. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.The Applicantis 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. PART IV -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00842

    Original file (ND02-00842.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like to say to you at this time that i did make some mistakes while i was in the navy, but being in debt is apart of every day life for civilians and military personnel every where. No indication of appeal in the record.990114: Vacate suspended forfeiture of 716.85 for 2 months and reduction to EOCN.990114: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation by failing to pay just debts, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Check, worthless, making and uttering -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00081

    Original file (ND00-00081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981224 with a General (under Honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct (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 THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00970

    Original file (ND00-00970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.970806: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disrespectful in language toward a petty officer; and communicating threats. No indication of appeal in the record.980929: Vacate suspended forfeiture of $400.00 for 1 month, extra duty for 15 days and reduction to MS3 awarded at CO's NJP of 4Aug98 due to continued misconduct.980929: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89 (2 specs): Disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ,...