Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01324
Original file (ND02-01324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01324

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20020917, 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. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D. C. area. The applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030812. 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: 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

 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:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     850718 - 860112  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 860113               Date of Discharge: 871016

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 09 04         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 41

 Highest Rate: MSSA

 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: 87

 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 :

870430:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
         Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 861215 – 1030, 870126, (41 days/surrendered).
         Specification 2: Unauthorized absence 0635, 870130 - 0830, 870203 (3 days/surrendered).
         Specification 3: Unauthorized absence 1200, 870217 - 0645, 870331 (43 days/surrendered).
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 45 days, reduction to MSSR.
         CA 870706: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

870430:  Applicant to confinement.

870528:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
870528:  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.
870601:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870606:  Applicant from confinement.

870901:  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870904:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

870930:  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 19871016 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 did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by a special court-martial conviction for unauthorized absence, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was discharged. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for a general (under honorable) characterization of service. Relief denied.

There 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. At this time the Applicant did not provide post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

 This review was conducted with the expiration of the applicant’s fifteen year eligibility for NDRB action (021016). As the applicant did not elect to appear before the Board in a personal appearance hearing, as recommended in NDRB letter ND02-01324/HER, this decision exhausts the applicant’s opportunity for review by the NDRB. The applicant remains eligible for appeal for upgrade to the Board for Correction of Naval Records.




Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 | ND99-01128

    Original file (ND99-01128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000522. Service Record 4. No relief is warranted in this issue.In response to the applicant’s issue 4, the Board took into account the medical records, reports, and all documents submitted.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00340

    Original file (ND00-00340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse actions. C. 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00094

    Original file (ND00-00094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS but the reason should be corrected to say PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Applicant declared a deserter 98MAR13, having been an unauthorized absentee since 1130 98FEB10, from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71).980616: Surrendered at Personnel Support Activity, MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL. The names, and votes of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01222

    Original file (ND03-01222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01222 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030714. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00251

    Original file (ND03-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant provided no documentation of his post-service for the Board to consider. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00869

    Original file (ND99-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000323. Unauthorized absence time was administratively determined to be lost time and is charged as non-performance of duty due to expiration of the statute of limitations.840815: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00163

    Original file (ND00-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880328 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and 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 (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00979

    Original file (ND01-00979.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00979 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010725, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :890817: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Going from place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00011

    Original file (ND01-00011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It doesn't get you nowhere.” The NDRB found this issue non decisional. Regret and remorse alone are no basis upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00262

    Original file (ND03-00262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Also my division officer recommended retention instead of separation.”Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.