Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01120
Original file (ND02-01120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND02-01120

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020805, 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. During my short stay in the United States Navy, I didn’t get into a lot of trouble. I got into an altercation with a marine at a club in Norway Sweden. The verbal altercation became physical when the marine shoved me to the ground. I defended myself, and it started a huge scuffle. I was very young and immature at that time. I wanted so badly to continue my navy career, but I had to suffer the consequences of my immature actions. I did not start the altercation, nor did I want it to get physical. I also got injured in the scuffle, but it did not get mentioned in Captain's mask. I'm deeply sorry for shaming the United States by fighting in a club in a foreign country, and for fighting another service member I hope the deciding board finds some sincerity in my words. I am very grateful for what the Navy did for me. It tamed me and made me into a man. I feel as though every young man with no direction should join the military. It really gives you discipline.

Sincerely yours,

 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: None
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930915               Date of Discharge: 950609

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 02
         Inactive: 00 02 22

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.60 (2)                OTA: 3.30

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFEM, BER, Letter of Commendation

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

931212:  You are being retained in the Naval service, despite your fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility information. This decision is based on the information you provided the Recruit Quality Assurance Interviewer and if it is found that additional information has not been disclosed, this waiver is void and you could be subject to other judicial or administrative proceedings, ie., following to close, 9/91, Gary, IN, paid $60 fine.

950331:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128 (2 specs): (1) Assault LCpl by striking him on the head with a means or force likely to produce grievous bodily harm on 2130, 950320, to wit: chair(s) and/or small table(s), (2) Commit an assault upon SSgt by striking him across the arm and head with a means or force likely to produce grievous bodily harm on 2130, 950320, to wit: a chair(s), violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct on 02130, 950320.
         Award: Forfeiture of $427 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.
950403:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
950403:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
950405:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

950601:  BUPERS directed 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 950609 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 immaturity precluded him from making mature decisions and that this fact should be considered in the recharacterization of his discharge. The Board found that the Applicant's age, education level, and test scores qualified him for enlistment. While he may feel that his immaturity was a factor that contributed to his actions, the record clearly reflects his disregard for the requirements of military discipline and demonstrated that his misconduct warranted processing for administrative discharge. The Record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief on this basis is 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. 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00963

    Original file (ND00-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION During the time immediately preceding my discharge, I was never approached by the Navy with any offer of advice, assistance or counseling. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00312

    Original file (ND00-00312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01017

    Original file (ND01-01017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge is, I must say that I am pleased with the discharge I have now, during the time that I was in the Navy I had gotten in pregnant and stayed away from my command for a short time. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Adverse Performance Evaluation Report Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Copies of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (4pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00505

    Original file (ND02-00505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CO's letter has the date of NJP as 5Jun96 vice 23Jun96.950724: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.950724: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00682

    Original file (ND00-00682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850710 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00465

    Original file (ND04-00465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “Mitigating Circumstances At this time I am requesting a review of my discharge. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00389

    Original file (ND00-00389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00389 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that there was no basis to upgrade the applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01077

    Original file (ND03-01077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Hence, the Applicant was not convicted a second time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00174

    Original file (ND00-00174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00174 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 950221: Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO's NJP dated 29Nov94 due to continued misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00715

    Original file (ND02-00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950222: 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 [Extracted from case file]. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence the Board found, by a vote of 3-0, the Applicant committed misconduct and his service should be characterized as other than honorable. However, the...