Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01095
Original file (ND02-01095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex- MSSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-01095

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020809, 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 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I respectfully request and upgrade of my discharge to Honorable so that I can receive my Montgomery GI Bill to better my education and provide for my family. I made terrible decisions while in the military and I have learned and grown from them. I just want to be better citizen and provider for my family.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
None.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     871130 - 880918  COG
         Active: USN                        880919 - 921210  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921211               Date of Discharge: 961016

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 10 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 4 (7 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: MS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFEM, SSDR, NAM, GCM, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 13

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

921211:  Reenlisted at SSC NTC SAN DIEGO, CA for 4 years.

 960712:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Did on or about 960501, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Naval Hospital, located at Jacksonville, Florida, and did remain so absent until on or about 960514(13 days/S). Charge II : violation of the UCMJ, Article 107: Did on or about 960503, with intent to deceive, present to PSD, NAS, Jacksonville, Florida, to wit: Special Request/Authorization, NAVPERS 1336/3, which document was false in that the three approving signature were not genuine, and was then known by the said Mess Specialist Third Class J_ NMN B_, Jr to be so false. Charge III : violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Did on or about 960406, wrongfully receive four compact discs and one bottle of brandy, of a value of less than $100.00, the property of Hospitalman A_ P. K_, U.S. Navy, which property, as he, the said Mess Specialist Third Class J_ NMN B_, Jr., then knew, had been stolen.
         Finding: to Charge I, II, III and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $450.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days, reduced to E-3.
         CA action 960802: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

960827:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his Summary Court-Martial conviction of 960712, for violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 and 134, false official statement and wrongfully receiving stolen property, respectively.
960830:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to submit a statement on own behalf and to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
960920:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his Summary Court-Martial conviction of 960712, for violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 and 134, false official statement and wrongfully receiving stolen property, respectively.

961002:  Commander, Naval Base, Jacksonville authorized the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 961016 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).

 Responding to the Applicant’s issue, the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Relied denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. The NDRB is authorized, however, 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 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable documents that may be provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.

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. 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00828

    Original file (ND01-00828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00828 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010605, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980129 under other than honorable conditions 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00441

    Original file (ND01-00441.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 response to the applicant’s issue, to permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00839

    Original file (ND01-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Force of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the appellant of an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable discharge to that of a General, Under Honorable Conditions. The applicant is reminded that his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00511

    Original file (ND00-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980504: Chief of Naval Personnel to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) recommending applicant's discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980619 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01099

    Original file (ND03-01099.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The applicant’s conduct and performance marks, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his misconduct, and fall below that required for an honorable characterization of service. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".The names, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01194

    Original file (ND01-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01194 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. The applicant described the circumstances surrounding discharge and requested a change based on his post service conduct. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00883

    Original file (ND99-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00883 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00084

    Original file (ND03-00084.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. 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, D, and E).Issue 1. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00721

    Original file (ND01-00721.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 990512: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000914 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00512

    Original file (ND01-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to scheduling a personal appearance hearing. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620. Dear Sir: I am taking this time to write to you and ask you to review my case and upgrade my discharge, from General under honorable conditions to Honorable Discharge.The reason I was discharged...