Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01201
Original file (ND02-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01201

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020820, 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 030722. 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. Dear Sirs My name is ( Applicant ) in concern of a discharge upgrade. Sirs I would like to tell my side of the story if I may. I was stationed on the USS COMPTE DE GRASS DD 974 I was an OSSA at the time I am not sure of the date it happened but we were go on a op with the coast Guard the morning my best friend was found dead hanging in Sonar 1. His name was B_ F_ I don't know the doctors name but he came from Portsmith Naval Hospital. The doctor and I talked for about an hour. He then talked to the C.O. and the X.O. They came back and told me to pack and I went T.A.D. for a while then I was sent to a work unit on base for about 2 or 3 months then they told me I was discharged with a O.T.H. discharge. And I asked why an O.T.H. I was 20 years old at the time and not thinking about what I was doing I hope I did not make a mistake that's unchangeable . Please sirs consider my request. Thank you.

 Sincerely your's

God Bless!

 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)     861003 - 861123  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 861124               Date of Discharge: 890308

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 15         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 9 GED            AFQT: 59

 Highest Rate: OSSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (1)    Behavior: 3.40 (1)                OTA : 3.40

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 85

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880608:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 1630, 880608.

880615:  Applicant missed ship's movement.

 880709:  Applicant declared a deserter.

880713:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0830, 880713 (35 days/surrendered).

880714:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0305, 880714 (36 days/surrendered).

880720:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 880720.

880722:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0001, 880722.

881101:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0740, 881101.

881104:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0200, 881104 (2 days/surrendered).

881119:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Unauthorized absence for over 30 days (1630, 880608 to 0305, 880714 (36 days/surrendered).
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 90:
         Specification: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, to wit: not to leave the ship on 880903.
 Findings: to Charge I, and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Confined for 55 days, forfeiture of $440 per month for 2 months, reduction to OSSR.
         CA 881119: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

881122:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 1721, 881122.

881123:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0630, 881123.

881128:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0740, 881101 to 0200, 881104.
         Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 1721, 881122 to 0630, 881123.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification 1: Fail to obey a lawful order issued by OS2, to get up and hold sweepers in the berthing compartment on 0730, 881113.
         Specification 2: Fail to obey a lawful order issued by OS2, to hold sweepers in OI divisional spaces on 0645, 881116.
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $000.00, reduced to E-0.
         CA action 000000: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for that portion of the punishment adjudging forfeiture of $000.00 which is suspended for 3 months.

890111:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
890111:  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.
890113:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

890216:  CNMPC 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 890308 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: In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable . A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The record is devoid of any evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of a court-martial on two separate occasions for unauthorized absence and failure to obey orders. The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. 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.

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 15560A), Change 6, effective
11 Jan 89 until 24 May 89, 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 | ND00-00086

    Original file (ND00-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It does not, however, change anything about the fact that the applicant had 4 NJPs, 2 retention warnings, was declared a deserter and was discharged from the Navy in absentia. The characterization is based on his time while in the service, which was served under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00773

    Original file (ND02-00773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00773 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020509, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Applicant presents to medical complaining of pain in right foot due to falling out of top rack…X-ray ordered, treatment recommended… ice, Motrin, ace wrap, cane given…SIQ one day…light duty 7 days…880316 Medical Entry USS SIERRA. Pt (Applicant) returned for treatment for injury right...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01080

    Original file (ND01-01080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent violations of the UCMJ or conduct resulting in civilian conviction could result in an administrative separation under other than honorable conditions), notified of corrective actions, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 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 states: “(Equity Issue) This former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00652

    Original file (ND99-00652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 890830 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. You may obtain a copy of DoD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00737

    Original file (ND01-00737.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00737 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to unfit for military duty. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls10.jag.af.mil ".The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01042

    Original file (ND02-01042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    he Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls far short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00589

    Original file (ND01-00589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CA action 880710: Sentence approved and ordered executed.880709: Applicant to confinement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880817 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00793

    Original file (ND03-00793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00793 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030403. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to medical substance abuse. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 6, effective 11 Jan 89 until 13 Jun 90, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE B.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00943

    Original file (ND99-00943.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 (C and D).The applicant’s first issue states: “The discharge was unfair because the CPO of my division discriminated against me constantly for unknown reasons which created a negative response from me.” The applicant provided no documentation to support this issue and the NDRB found no evidence in the record to support it. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00739

    Original file (ND00-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    890127: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.890824: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. 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’s first issue states: “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because of a one time conviction in a year and a...