Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01117
Original file (ND02-01117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSA, USN
Docket No. ND02-01117

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020807, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I am respectfully requesting to have my discharge upgraded to Honorable. I was falsely accused of theft. I was a mail P.O. for my division. After delivering the mail to everyone’s rack a fellow shipmate and friend went behind me and took a box of checks from someone’s rack. I considered use to be pretty close. He used the checks to order pizza several different times. I suspected the checks didn't belong to him because he would never let them bring the pizza to his apartment. At the time no one knew the checks were missing. Once they were noticed gone I asked him if he took them and he said no. But a couple of days later he was telling everyone that I took them. He also said he had a witness that would back him up. At captains mast the both told the Captain that it was me and he believed them.

 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)     940621 - 940805  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940808               Date of Discharge: 980115

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 66

 Highest Rate: OSSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (5)    Behavior: 2.60 (5)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR, AFSM, NDSM, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960716:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (UCMJ Article 121: Theft.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
971010:  Captain's mast of 960716 disallowed. Applicant was found not guilty of all charges by new evidence. All rights and privileges restored to Applicant.
971215:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 123 (3 specs): Forgery, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Stealing mail.
         Award: Forfeiture of $505 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to OSSA. No indication of appeal in the record.
980115:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 980115 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).

 The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on non-judicial actions that were without merit. The NDRB found credible evidence of misconduct in the service records of the Applicant. This misconduct did warrant processing for separation as initiated by the Applicant's command. The nonjudicial proceedings indicate the propriety and equity of the discharge process. The Applicant’s record of service does not sufficiently mitigate his misconduct to warrant an upgrade in his characterization of service. Relief 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 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 an upgrade.

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 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00411

    Original file (ND99-00411.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. 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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 941217 - 941227 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 941228 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00455

    Original file (ND02-00455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks, Retention Warning, dtd 13Oct99 NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks, NJP action, dtd 15Sep 99 Copy of DD Form 214. No indication of appeal in the record.991209: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due pattern of misconduct and due...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00603

    Original file (ND01-00603.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION There was nothing in the applicant’s records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. Relief denied.There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01005

    Original file (ND01-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01005 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010730, 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:None. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01334

    Original file (ND03-01334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.980115: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.980115: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00723

    Original file (ND00-00723.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt states he was diagnosed as an alcoholic but not documentation in health record. Pt was told to come find me at any time if situation became too stressful. 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 1, a member does not have to be “charged with a crime” or have a court martial or NJP to be administratively separated...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00036

    Original file (ND00-00036.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (4 specs):. 981110: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Relief is not warranted.The applicants second issue states: “(Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00906

    Original file (ND02-00906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00906 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020610, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. At 1800 I was called to the personal office over the 1 mc, LNC told me that I was receiving a "General Discharge". and if there is no records to affirm the Navy's charges or lack there of I request that my "General Discharge" be over turned and be issued an "Honorable Discharge".

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00343

    Original file (ND04-00343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Additionally, Petty Officer T_ (Applicant) lacks the ability to handle problems at a third class Petty Officer level, and has failed to live up to Navy Core Values, Honor, Courage and Commitment. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00363

    Original file (ND02-00363.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00363 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020131, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Sidney Police Department Record Check Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...