Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00118
Original file (ND03-00118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00118

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021025. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031114. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated:

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “To Whom It May Concern,

Today I am writing to you so that I can change the discharge of my past that was givin to me. I wish to re-enlist back into the Navy, and the causes of my behavior back in the past was due to being young and inexperienced in life, I pled guilty for what I have done but I am asking for a second chance. So please if possible if you could change my re-enlistment code I would be very pleased. R_ M_ T_ SSN (social security number deleted) .”

Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found.
Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion):
“2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR(DEP)               19951106 – 19960610      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19960611             Date of Discharge: 19971212

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 02         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                                   Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: HA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                           Behavior: 3.00 (1)                OTA: 3.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 147

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605. [Note BUPERSINST 1900.8 list the authority as 3630600 instead of 3630605]

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971113:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Unauthorized absence from 0001, 970525 to 1830, 970529 (4 days/surrendered), (2) Unauthorized absence from 0001, 970531 to 0650, 970604 (3 days/ surrendered), (3) Unauthorized absence from 0715, 970609 to 2050, 971029 (140 days/surrendered).
         Violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement on 970528.
         Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful written order on 970524.
Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to HR. No indication of appeal in the record.
971212:  DD Form 214: Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19971212 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.. 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 Applicant acknowledges his mistakes of the past would like to have a second chance by re-entering in the Navy and requested a change in the reenlistment code.

The Board recognizes that the Applicant is remorseful for the poor judgment he exercised during his military career. However, the Board will not recharacterize a former member’s discharge because he realizes he made mistakes while serving his country. The Board will only change a discharge if the issuance is determined to have been inequitable or improper. The Board is Relief denied.

 Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.
Issue 2. The Applicant’s counsel requests the Board consider the Applicant’s post-service conduct in assessing the merits of his application for discharge upgrade.
The Board 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. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630605, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00172

    Original file (ND99-00172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My family is also going through counseling as well and it has proved to help them tremendously. I recommend that MSSN (applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.970922: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Changes in the applicant’s life since his discharge do not change the facts leading up to and the reason for his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01399

    Original file (ND03-01399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My name is J_ L_ T_ (Applicant). 970911: Commanding Officer informed Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel (PERS-83) of concurrence with administrative discharge board’s findings and recommendation to discharge Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.970930: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00097

    Original file (ND04-00097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Since then I’ve realized, I miss being in the Navy, serving my country.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01159

    Original file (ND04-01159.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).The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01048

    Original file (ND01-01048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant introduced no issues for the Board to consider. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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 of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00604

    Original file (ND99-00604.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 (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The applicant did not provided any documentation of good character or conduct, which would warrant an upgrade to his discharge. He remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, to discuss his post-service accomplishments, provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00252

    Original file (ND00-00252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991214, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 issue 1, the applicant states that his “discharge was inequitable because...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00493

    Original file (ND00-00493.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00493 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991214, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to economic reasons. With his violation of the page 13 warning, GSMFN (applicant) left this command with no other alternate to processing him for administrative separation, and I know of no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01005

    Original file (ND99-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 116. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980828 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this...