Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00930
Original file (ND02-00930.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00930

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020619, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to contract complied with. 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 030331. 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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. Department of Veteran affairs advised that Item #26; needs to be upgraded.
My grandfather [name omitted] served in the US Navy in world war II and retired after thirty years as a Chief Warrant Officer. Both my uncle served in the United States Army. My uncle [name omitted] serve in the U.S. Army in especial services while the Korean conflict was in effect. My other uncle [name omitted] was also in the army during the Korean conflict. He became mentally disable due to the war. He has been mentally incapacitated since then. My father [name omitted] while in college served in the US M. C. R and later enrolled for the six month program which they were offering at that time. One can only see that the [family name]'s have been part of the fabric of the Military and proud to have contributed to defend our country and our freedom against unwanted elements. When I graduated from High School, my desires were to join the U.S. Air Force but my mother was overly protective and was concern that I was too young for the service. My intentions at the time was to make a career out of the military. On February 13, 1995 I join the United States Air Force Reserve where I attended basic training for a duration of 6 weeks. Upon successful completion of the program I was later bussed to Wichita Falls, Texas to attend Power Plants Technical School for the 163rd Air Re-fueling Group out of March Air Force Base, Riverside, California. Upon completion of the training I reported for duty to the Air National Guard of the USAF. I made multiple attempt to transfer to active duty but was told that because of the high influx of people joining the Air force that there was no need for me to transfer and the possibility to transfer to active duty was close to slim. This was my original intentions, however, with being 31 at that time going on 32 frustration started to take place. I wanted to follow my grandfather foot steps. With this being said, I decided to look in the United States Navy where my age was not a concern. I attended boot camp for the Navy on January of 1996 where there I ended up training for a period of eleven weeks. In Millington, Tennessee I took a course in Jab Strand for a period of ten weeks for the refreshing of remedial learning skills. I graduated the course with a 98.7 GPA and while in the Air Force I graduated Tech School with a 99.6 GPA. After graduating Job Strand I shipped out to Great Lakes, Chicago to start my training in ET Technical core. I started off fairly well in the program but my grades were not to my expectations, however the instructors were very considerate and kept me in the course because I was putting forth the effort and was trying to say the least. After 9 months in the program I found myself reaching learning saturation. No matter how much I tried I was not able to grasp the information and as result of was failing the test. I had moments of neurosis provoking moments and had concluded that maybe what I needed was a break I requested from the Lieutenant to let me go out to the fleet for awhile.

In the ET command I signed a form that ended my 2-years obliserve therefore giving me end of duty date for the first tour of January 3, 2000. Shortly afterwards I reported to the USS-Merrimack where there I worked in deck for the majority my tour. During the end of my tour with VF-32 the PN's had me sign a 2.5 year extension, the rumor going about was if I didn't, I would get a General Discharge with an RE-4 reenlistment code which I ended up getting anyway. I signed the form under duress without having all of the required information and because of this I found myself between a rock an a hard place. I went and spoke to the Chaplain and he also stated that I did not have to sign the extension and that the command cannot give discharge and reenlistment codes per the signing of the extension. I felt that I was played wrong, and through my frustration, I used the government's credit card as an option of dismissal. The first time that I went to Captain Mast, I received a reduction in rate and was assigned extra duty for the command. The second time that I went to Captain Mast was for the possession of a second credit card that I had on my person, and for this I received 45/45 and was discharged. I take full responsibility for the use of the credit card, and if you were to inquire on the account of this card, you will find out that the account has been paid in full in an expedient manner. Up to this time if you take a look at my DD- 214 you will see that I received a medal for good conduct. AU these problems came into affect when the command found out that I was not going to reenlist. I would like to bring at this point that I accomplished going through two boot camps one in the Air Force and the other in the Navy I have a total of 5 years of military service for which I served for proudly as a member of the armed forces. Gentlemen, at the age of 32 1 was called the grand dad of the outfit, I had younger kids still wet behind the ears giving me orders and using their superior rank to humiliate me. Frankly I felt as a misfit. I joined the military with good intentions and I am proud to say that I was a member of the military and would join again with no hesitation, however I wish I would have joined fresh out of high school. Please also bear in mind that I served in the enterprise during Operation Fox in the Persian Gulf. I am currently attending the University of Phoenix Online for a Bachelors of Science Degree in Information Technology. I am also a driver for Schneider National Carriers, Inc. I wish to grow and learn from my mistakes for I have made a few. I ask for your forgiveness and understanding I am truly sorry. Please reconsider my Discharge, Reenlistment code, and the statement in reference to pattern of misconduct. I wish for this to be upgraded and therefore believe that I have the grounds for due to the misrepresentation by the command (FITRON.VF-32). Please make it possible for me to display and Honorable Discharge on the wall together with that of my Grandfather, uncles, and father

Sincerely, [Applicant]

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from BCNR advising Applicant to petition NDRB
DD Form 149
Service Related Documents (35 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960104               Date of Discharge: 991223

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 11 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 32                          Years Contracted: 4
          + 24 mo extension
         + 20 mo extension
 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 55

 Highest Rate: AD3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.25 (4)    Behavior: 3.00 (4)                OTA: 3.10 (5.0 Evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCA, SSDR, AFEM, NATOM, NUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960126:  Page 13 entry: Applicant signs statement of understanding requiring him to commit to 6 years of obligated service in order to secure the JOBS STRAND IV guarantee.

960521:  NAVPERS 1070/621: Applicant voluntarily extends enlistment for 24 months for training in Advanced Electronics Field and accelerated promotion to E-4.

970221:  Page 13 entry: Applicant acknowledges that he has been dropped from his guaranteed training, Advanced Electronics Technical Core School for academic reasons.

990519:  NAVPERS 1070/621: Applicant voluntarily extends enlistment for 20 months to incur sufficient obligated service.

990824:  NJP [documents not found in service records; date of NJP taken from retention warning of same date and from NAVPERS 1070/604 Awards Page].

990824:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Misconduct as evidenced by CO's NJP on 990824). Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

991118:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful order 990802, violation of UCMJ Article 107: (2 Specifications), false official statement on 990729 and 990924.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT FOUND IN SERVICE RECORDS

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 991223 with a characterization of general (under 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).

Issue 1: The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper as he was forced into signing a total of two and a half years of extensions to his original service contract under threats from his command to discharge him if he did not comply. The records the Board reviewed showed that the Applicant was well aware of the additional service obligations associated with his occupational field and that he voluntarily extended his enlistment, on two separate occasions, to meet these service obligations. Additionally, the Applicant's service record showed there was a credible basis for administratively separating him for a pattern of misconduct. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant further contends that his service records contain meritorious entries that indicate his military service was honorable. With regard to separation, misconduct warrants a characterization of service normally no better than general (under honorable conditions). A characterization of honorable is not authorized unless a sailor's record is otherwise so meritorious that any characterization less than honorable would clearly be inappropriate. While the NDRB recognizes the positive aspects of the Applicant's service, the records that the Board reviewed showed there was credible evidence the Applicant committed misconduct. Upon further examination, the Board determined that the Applicant's service record did not contain any mitigating or extenuating factors or any entries so meritorious as to warrant an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge. Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant further contends that his post-service conduct, to include continued education and employment, warrant consideration of an upgrade to his discharge. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge even though there is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. 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. Verifiable proof of 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, an employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of documents that may be provided to the Board to receive consideration of relief based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider. Relief is therefore denied.

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 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00647

    Original file (MD03-00647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION At the time, I was experiencing some family issues back at home.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00562

    Original file (MD01-00562.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00562 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010321, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I joined the marines for the reasons, I don't deserve to be in the marines. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00440

    Original file (ND04-00440.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00440 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040121. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Member fully understands decision concerning continued military service versus discharge from Navy rests solely with the parent command and the above discharge plans and recommendations are not binding.971222: Medical Eval: Pt was evaluated as an outpatient by Dr. A_ for the pt’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00723

    Original file (ND01-00723.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 971117: Commenced 48 months of active duty under the TAR program.981014: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation on 980824. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500155

    Original file (ND0500155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00155 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041101. After this incidence I received my third NJP within a six month period. Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Applicant’s DD Form 214 Newspaper article dtd 041010 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 991020 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00029

    Original file (ND04-00029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. My decision to join the United States Navy was solely made as an attempt to prove something to my family. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01196

    Original file (ND01-01196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-CMCR, USN Docket No. ND01-01196 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Personal Reference ltr from EMCS(SW) S.E.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00937

    Original file (ND04-00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. ND04-00937 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040520. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation or uncharacterized.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00179

    Original file (MD03-00179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00179 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. This is what motivated my command to not only get me out of the Marine Corp as an alcohol treatment failure but to include the characterization of pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600472

    Original file (MD0600472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00472 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060210. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). (Applicant) reported positive urinalysis was in error and he has not used marijuana since enlisting in Marines.