Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01193
Original file (ND02-01193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01193

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020821, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030515. 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. Respectfully request to change my reentry code to serve again in the United States military (Navy). My life has changed since September 11, 01 Terrorist Attacks. I see things from a mature point of view. My respects to all of those who lost their love ones, and those firefighters, police men and military who lost their lives during this tragedy. I am on the right path now, please allow me the opportunity to show that I have the skills to serve my country once again. God Bless our Marines in Afghanistan and all Sailors overseas. I will not failed this time if given me the opportunity. I have attached to this application my Good Conduct Letter from Puerto Rico Police Department and an additional page. Allow me a 2 nd opportunity to go on active duty service . I submitted a copy of my D.D. 214. Very Respectfully, (Signed by Applicant)

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant's letter to the Board, undated
Copy of DD Form 214
Puerto Rico Police Record, dated 29 July 2002

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     991130 - 991222  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 991223               Date of Discharge: 001201

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 11 09         (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12½                        AFQT: 38

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*        Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 44

 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 :

991223   Applicant reported to Recruit Training, Great Lakes.

 000511   Applicant reported to USS ANCHORAGE (LSD-36) for duty. Home port San Diego, CA.
000613   Medical record entry. Applicant found to be alcohol dependent.

000711:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from USS ANCHORAGE (LSD-36).

000721:  Applicant declared a deserter - DD553 issued.

 000821:  Applicant surrendered to military jurisdiction (Transient Personnel Unit (TPU), Naval Station, San Diego, CA.
000825:  Applicant assigned to temporary duty at TPU for administrative separation processing.
000831:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000831:  Commanding Officer, USS ANCHORAGE (LSD-36) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): [FA L_ (Applicant) went UA while pending NJP, he put himself into a position where he knew he would be UA and miss ship's movement prior to deployment. FA L_ (Applicant) was classified a deserter on August 10, after 30 days UA. FA L_ (Applicant)'s offenses warrant separation from the Navy with an Other Than Honorable specification.]

001020:  TPU, NAVSTA, San Diego, CA, held NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs): Specification (1) Unauthorized absence from unit, USS ANCHORAGE from 11 JUL 00 to 21 AUG 00. Specification (2) Unauthorized absence from unit, TPU NAVSTA, San Diego, from 0700 to 1500, 1 OCT 00. Specification (3) Unauthorized absence from unit, TPU, NAVSTA, San Diego, from 16 OCT 00 to 18 OCT 00.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 Specs): Specification (1) On 16 SEP 00 as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor was incapacitated for the performance of duty. Specification (2) On 18 OCT 00 as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor was incapacitated for the performance of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
001201:  Per the Applicant's DD Form 214, Applicant was discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Note: Incomplete discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 001201 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).

Issue 1: The NDRB has no authority to make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the naval service or any other branch of the Armed Forces, as requested by the Applicant. Neither a less than honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. The “RE-4” code means the former service member is not eligible for reenlistment without prior approval of the Chief of Naval Personnel. Relief denied.

The Applicant’s summary of service is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) and counseling entries for his misconduct. 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. After a complete review of the record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

T here is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may 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 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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. Relief denied.

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. 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 30, dated 7 Nov 00, effective 30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500401

    Original file (ND0500401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of a special court-martial for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 87 (Missing ships movement), and Article 112a (Possession of 8 bottles of steroids). 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01197

    Original file (ND02-01197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01197 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020814, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In 1997, I was discharged from the Navy with General (Under Honorable Conditions), due to misconduct! Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343

    Original file (ND0600343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00383

    Original file (ND02-00383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".The names, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01383

    Original file (ND03-01383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030819. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. (f) (1).As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to ensure a fair standard his administered,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00456

    Original file (ND02-00456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00456 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On May 4 th I was informed that I was not going to be transferred and that all request where denied.My dad's condition was serious so I took the matter upon myself to leave my duty station on May 6 th 2000 and return home to provide care for my father. I received a General Discharge (under honorable conditions) and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500869

    Original file (ND0500869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general under honorable conditions. I recommend that BM3 M_ (Applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge by reason of misconduct”.940119: Commanding Officer, TPU, San Diego, CA forwarded to BUPERS, discharge documentation. 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...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00586

    Original file (ND02-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    001027: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant's discharge with a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions) 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 001228 with a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00394

    Original file (ND00-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00394 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000209, requested that the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. 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 applicant states “m At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.