Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00062
Original file (ND03-00062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00062

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021010. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests 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 20040303. 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 - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I was young at the time, I know that isn’t an excuse but I truly didn’t realize the consequences of a discharge. Plus, at the time of my separation I wasn’t informed of my rights to appeal. From the time I received my discharge I felt it was unfair because there were others on my ship who didn’t get discharged after their first dirty piss test. This type of separation has affected many jobs that I am qualified for plus many V.A. Benefits. Pleas realize that its extremely hard getting a good paying job because of my skin color alone and this type of separation makes it even harder. If I would have known that this discharge would have affected me like it has I would have thought twice about my actions. I admit I made a mistake but must I suffer the rest of my life. I really enjoyed being in the Navy and I wanted to make a career out of it but since I can’t I would like to have this burden taken off of me so that I can live a better quality of life.
Thank you for your time and consideration

Sincerely
M_ D_ (Applicant)”

 Documentation
The Applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214.
On January 12, 2004, the Applicant was notified that the Board was unable to locate and obtain his service and medical records and he was given the option of proceeding with the review or closing his case at this time. The Applicant did not respond.


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     Unknown
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890620               Date of Discharge: 910315

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: Unknown

 Education Level: Unknown                  AFQT: Unknown

 Highest Rate: Unknown

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*                 Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

* No Marks Available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910311:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 25.]

910315:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19910315 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct . Additionally, t he Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board presumed regularity in the Applicant’s discharge. 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, a drug-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.

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 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00048

    Original file (ND04-00048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00048 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031007. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 980219: UA from 0700-1400, 980219.980420: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit on or about 980314 until 980316 (2 days).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01120

    Original file (ND03-01120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Applicant's service record, the Board found that the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as other than honorable was proper and equitable. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00612

    Original file (ND04-00612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. I was young and the recruiter made a deal with me, that cost me my life. Commanding Officer’s comments: SR F_ (Applicant) has been extremely inconsistent since reporting on board in April of last year.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00578

    Original file (ND03-00578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to “orderly conduct either or.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00989

    Original file (ND00-00989.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-OSSN, USN Docket No. 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 issue states: “My discharge was based on one isolated incident out of 2 years continuous naval service with no previous disciplinary problems.” The applicants misconduct, violation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00394

    Original file (ND03-00394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Respectfully Request my discharge be changed and Reenlistment code be changed as well.” Documentation In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, 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) 920129 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00313

    Original file (ND99-00313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940726 - 950717 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950718 Date of Discharge: 960807 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 00 20 Inactive: None PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00416

    Original file (ND03-00416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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).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. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00720

    Original file (ND99-00720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00720 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990503, 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Responding to the applicant’s issue, the Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00978

    Original file (ND00-00978.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010209. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. The Board has no obligation to change the applicant’s discharge in order to “help further his potential.” No relief will be granted based on this issue.