Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01285
Original file (ND02-01285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENS, USN
Docket No. ND02-01285

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020911, 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 designate a 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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 18 months of service with no other adverse action.

2. My discharge was not forced or suggested, instead my commanding officer at the time believed that I would make a good Naval officer - Letter of Reprimand.

 3. My discharge request was based on my desire to move closer to my family, not on the one isolated incident.

4. My discharge means I can never again join a branch of the Armed Forces.

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR            971006 - 980109  To commenced OCS trng
         Active: USNR (Trng)      980110 - 980423  To accept commission

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission: 980424      Date of Discharge: 990831

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 16     

Highest Grade: ENS

 Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages : All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance, as administratively corrected by this Board):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990217:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny and wrongful appropriation – did, on board Randolph Air Force Base, Tx, did at Building #1073 Army and Air Force Exchange Service on or about 12 Jan 99, steal Aiwa Cross Training Sport AM/FM Stereo Headband Radio/Headphone, of a value of $27.95, the property of Army and Navy Exchange Service.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemen – on or about 12 Jan 1999, wrongfully and knowingly steal, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service compromising the officer’s character and disgracing the armed forces.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements – on or about 2 Feb 99, with intent to deceive, make to 12 th Flying Training Wing Office of Special Investigations an official statement, to wit: she did not intentionally steal a Aiwa Cross Training Sport AM/FM Stereo headband Radio/Headphone, which statement was totally false and was then known by the said Office of Special Investigations to be so false.
         Award: Letter of Reprimand. Not appealed.
990217:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to the Applicant.
990217:  Applicant’s statement in service record.

990304:  Report of Applicant’s NJP to CHNAVPERS, with a recommendation of retention on active duty only if the Fleet Support community or any one of the other restricted line communities are willing to give her a second chance.
990702:  CHNAVPERS advises the Secretary of the Navy that Applicant’s request for redesignation will not be staffed by the CNPC since she has adjudicated misconduct in her official record. Additionally, upon initiation of administrative separation processing, Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for a General discharge in lieu of further administrative separation processing. CHNAVPERS recommends Applicant’s separation from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

990728:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved discharge action.

990831:  Applicant discharged due to misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 990831 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to the 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. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of an officer. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

Issues 2 and 3. The record states that the Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for a General discharge in lieu of further administrative separation processing. The record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. The Board found no reason to believe that her separation was not forced or that her administrative separation proceedings were based on her desire to move closer to her family. Relief denied.

Issue 4. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of service in question. No such error or inequity occurred during the Applicant’s service. Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to permit future service in the armed forces, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. Relief denied.

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her 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. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.
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

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01118

    Original file (MD99-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990511: Commanding Officer, MATSG, recommended that the Show Cause Authority convene and Administrative Separation Board, stating: "While the applicant's Navy's Chain of command supports his retention, "I do not", and recommended convening a board to appropriately characterize the applicant's discharge.990615: CMC recommended to the SECNAV that applicant be discharged with a General (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00874

    Original file (ND02-00874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00874 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant understood that a discharge under honorable conditions (general) is not the highest qualitative type of separation, and that while he may be entitled to the major portion of veteran's rights and benefits presently authorized for former officers whose service has been similar to his own, should any present...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00148

    Original file (ND99-00148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00148 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My offer to submit a new sample for analysis when I was informed of the results of the 3 August 1991 analysis vas denied.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01054

    Original file (ND01-01054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Thirty-three pages from applicant's service record Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 910717 - 941011 HON USN 941012 - 980226 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 901123 - 910716 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 980227 Date of Discharge: 000721 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00575

    Original file (ND99-00575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980312: CHNAVPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant's resignation be approved and the request for separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial be directed with a General characterization. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01051

    Original file (ND00-01051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects an "honorable" discharge instead of "general under honorable conditions" as directed by the Secretary of the Navy. The Board's review was based upon applicant receiving a "General". The applicant did not provide any of these documents.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01254

    Original file (ND02-01254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01254 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020906, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :950330: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey lawful...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00080

    Original file (ND02-00080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910814: CO, NAVHOSP Portsmouth, reported Applicant's NJP to BUPERS.910719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91 and the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.910722: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00250

    Original file (MD00-00250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.980120: Applicant informed eligible but not recommended for promotion to Cpl for the promotion period Jan/Feb/Mar 98 because of assigned to weight control program.980123: Vacate suspended forfeiture of $205.00 for 2 months and restriction and extra duty for 30 days awarded at CO's NJP dated 21Aug97. After a thorough review of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00684

    Original file (ND99-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00684 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: did, at or near Kingsville, TX, on or about 11 Jan 93 wrongfully appropriate dependent travel benefits payments, of a value of $909.70, the property of the U.S. Government. 961004: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by...