Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01044
Original file (ND02-01044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DT3, USN
Docket No. ND02-01044

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020718, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030612. 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)/NON-RETENTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-104.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

Review Board,

I have been discharged on December 27, 2000. Upon discharge I have been nothing less than a modeled citizen. With the experience and discipline learned from serving ten (10) years in the U.S. Navy, I believe I could achieve any obstacle. I have robbed myself of the opportunity to become a Naval Officer. So, the issue I bring before you today is with my military and educational experience my discharge is hindering job opportunities. I get as for as the interview process and when I explain my discharge I’m quickly turned away.

I ask in good faith for an upgrade from General under Honorable conditions to Honorable. My service record should speak volumes concerning my Naval career. I continue striving for improvement as demonstrated by completing a Masters of Science degree May 2002. The Navy has been all I have ever known and now I must take a new journey. I only request to be sent into battle with the proper gear, which, in this case it would be a change in discharge status. I’m confident the Board will act in good faith and I trust each of you will do the right thing. I thank you for your time and patience.

Sincerely, (Signed by the Applicant)

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
7 Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports
Certificate of Master of Science in Administration, Central Michigan University of
May, 2002
 Certificate of Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology, Columbia College of May 13, 2000
 Certificate of Associate of Arts Degree, Columbia College of Oct 4, 1997
Certificate of Apprenticeship, Dental Assistant, of 29 Jul 96
Certificate for Distinguished Medal Award for Junior Sailor of the Year 1996
Certificate for Navy Achievement Medal (31 Jan 96 to 30 Jun 96) dtd 23 Sep 96
Certificate for Navy Achievement Medal (Gold Star in lieu of Second Award) (Oct 95 – Sep 96) dtd 14 Mar 97
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 25 Sep 94
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 25 Sep 97
Dept of Navy Good Conduct Award dtd 18 Jul 00
Letter of Appreciation, CO, Naval Dental Center, dtd 29 Jun 93
Letter of Commendation, Naval Training Center, Orlando (Nov 91 to Apr 94)
Letter of Citation for Meritorious Unit Commendation (1 May 96 to 1 May 98), signed by Commandant of the Marine Corps
Letter of Commendation (Jun 94 to Jun 97) from CG, 2D FSSG, MARFORLANT
Letter of Commendation from Naval Dental Center Southeast, Jacksonville, FL

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900622 - 900925  COG
         Active: USN                        900926 - 970331  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970401               Date of Discharge: 001227

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 27
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 3 (4 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: DT2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.25 (4)    Behavior: 3.50 (4)                OTA: 3.39 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NAM (2), GCM (3), FMF Ribbon, NDSM, MUC, Navy Pistol Ribbon

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/NON-RETENTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article MILPESMAN 1910-104.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970401:  Reenlisted for 3 years at 2D FSSG, MARFORLANT, Camp Lejuene, NC.

 000401:  Extended for four months to have EAOS match PRD. Established EAOS as 31 July 2000.
000522:  Charge Sheet:
Charge I: Violation UCMJ, Article 92: Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, who knew of his duties at the Branch Dental Clinic, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL, on divers occasions from on or about March 98 to on or about May 1999, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to carry out the duties of a leading petty officer, as it was his duty to do by not submitting leave chits of personnel attached to the Branch Dental Clinic Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL;
Charge II: Violation of UCMJ, 134: Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, on or about 18 May 1999, wrongfully communicate to DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, a threat to injury DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, by flinching his body and drawing back his fist and saying “I’ll break your mother f—king neck.” or words to that effect.
000731:  Applicant retained beyond EAOS in a legal hold status while pending a special court-martial.
001209:  Special Court-Martial.  
Charge I: Violation UCMJ, Article 92: Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, who knew of his duties at the Branch Dental Clinic, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL, on divers occasions from on or about March 98 to on or about May 1999, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to carry out the duties of a leading petty officer, as it was his duty to do by not submitting leave chits of personnel attached to the Branch Dental Clinic Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL;
Charge II: Violation of UCMJ, 134: Did, at or near Jacksonville, FL, on or about 18 May 1999, wrongfully communicate to DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, a threat to injury DT3 M_ D. C_, USN, by flinching his body and drawing back his fist and saying “I’ll break your mother f—king neck.” or words to that effect.
         Findings: to Charge I – guilty; to Charge II – not guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 21 days, reduction to E-4.

001221:  Applicant requested to reenlist for a term of two years; command disapproved request.

001221:  Applicant requested Captain’s Mast. However, on 001226, Applicant rescinded his request.

001226:  Letter to Applicant concerning an adverse performance evaluation report and provided his rights.

001227:  Applicant given opportunity to sign his eval report/counseling record (NAVPERS 1610/2) of 00MAR16 to 00DEC27, but refused to do so. He was made aware of his rights.

001227:  Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) due to not meeting the reenlistment criteria and his enlistment, as extended, had expired. Assigned separation code of “KGH” – Non-Retention On Active Duty.

010302:  Defense Counsel requested clemency for Applicant. Applicant provided
Unsworn Statement.
010419:  Review by Judge Advocate: Approved sentence is legal.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 001227 under honorable conditions (general) for expiration of enlistment and not meeting reenlistment criteria (non-retention on active duty) (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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).

Issue 1. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he Applicant’s service was marred by a special court-martial. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country during his final enlistment. 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged. 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 27, effective 27 March 2000 until 7 May 2001, Article 1910-104 (previously 3620150), Separation by Reason of Expiration of Active Obligated Service (EAOS).

B. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Changed 29, effective 22 August 00, Article 1160-120, High Year Tenure.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01141

    Original file (ND99-01141.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt reports drinking heavily last p.m. His prognosis is guarded provided he adheres to the recommended continuing care plan.Final Diagnosis: AXIS I: Alcohol Dependence with Physiological Dependence Early Full Remission in a Controlled Environment (303.90), Nicotine Dependence (305.10) AXIS II: No Diagnosis (V71.09) AXIS III: No Diagnosis951112: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: failed to obey a direct order by HM1 R. M_ and HM2 M_ by sleeping on duty while on watch at ER, USS AMERICA at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600332

    Original file (ND0600332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“-I would like for my RE-4 code and/or my narrative reason to be upgraded for eligibility to return to a branch of service.” Appeal denied 031105.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of serious offense. The names, and votes of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00757

    Original file (ND00-00757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-104.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 2: ( Equity Issue ) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01005

    Original file (ND00-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION of Transportation (FAA) Mechanic License issued 2 March 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 810504 - 851210 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 800907 - 810503 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 851211 Date of Discharge: 900309 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 02 29 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time.) 881013: Special Court Martial.Charge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01342

    Original file (MD02-01342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980629 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted special court-martial that was determined to be legal and proper, affirmed by appellate review authority and executed (A and B). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00043

    Original file (ND02-00043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00043 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, or entry level separation or uncharacterized, to include changing the reenlistment code. Pt denied any symptoms of depression or history of suicidal/homicidal ideation. The Board determined that the applicant’s post service documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00061

    Original file (ND01-00061.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00642

    Original file (ND04-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specification 4: Wrongfully harassing and using abusive language toward prospect T_ F_ on or about Jul 94.Specification 5: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect T_ F_ by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00912

    Original file (ND04-00912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00912 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040511. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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:

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600452

    Original file (MD0600452.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of Naval service,...