Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00129
Original file (ND03-00129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00129

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021101, 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, DC area. The applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030926. 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 submitted

1. My discharge was inequitable because: Upon my second security clearance, in week 8 of bootcamp (SSC/NTC San Diego, CA), on either Sept or Oct, I failed to answer one question in correspondence to my initial security clearance during recruition. Due to a reponse I had made to a question concerning whether or not I had ever walked in my sleep. At his own discretion, my recruiter; then, wrote down “no” to a question that I had answered” yes during childhood” to. This in turn, affected my mental state of mind: including but no limited to, my attitude and ambition, not to mention being disenrolled from the Navy SEAL’s training program, and rate being changed to “ST” to “FC”. Considering the above, I still managed to put forth enough effort to complete BE/E and all but 2wks of FC”A” school, meanwhile, dealing with my lack of power by use of alcohol. Ladies and/or Gentlemen of the review board, I realize that some of my actions during the course of my time served in the U.S. Navy were not proper and were penalized as such, which contributed to low self esteem and alcoholism. Furthermore, my decision to disenroll from FC”A” School can be linked to the above issues and my inability to make rational decisions as well as my age or immaturity at the time. Since that time I’ve realized how my decision has affected my life terminally and I respectfully request my discharge be upgraded.

 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)     None
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19880615             Date of Discharge: 19891114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 18
         Inactive: 00 00 12

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                  Behavior: NOB             OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

880614:  Ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner program.

 881129:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: On or about 2100, 881105 failed to obey a lawful order.
Award: Forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 1 month. No indication of appeal in the record.
 881129:  Retention Warning from [SSC, NTC, San Diego, CA]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890330:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), UA, Specification 1: UA 1520-1650, 890306; Specification 2: UA 1520 to 1750, 890320.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

890330:  Retention Warning from [SSC, NTC, San Diego, CA]: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ Article 86.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890418:  Medical evaluation indicates Applicant was found not psychologically or physically dependent on alcohol and does not need treatment.

890427:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Did on 890408 failed to obey a lawful order by consuming an alcoholic beverage while on restriction.
         Award: Forfeiture of $160.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

890605:  Medical evaluation indicates Applicant was found not psychologically or physically dependent.

890719:  Applicant disenrolled from Level II treatment because of his disruptive attitude and negative behavior. He is considered a treatment failure. [Extracted from CO’s comments and recommendations].

890807:  SSC, Great Lakes notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your Officer in Charge Non-judicial Punishment of 881129 and 890427 and by reason of pattern of misconduct as evidenced by your Officer in Charge Non-judicial Punishment of 881129, 890320 and 890427 and by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure as evidenced by NAVTRASTA ltr of 890627, with attachments showing your disenrollment from Level II treatment.
890807:  Applicant advised of 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.
890815:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): if appropriate

891107:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19891114 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. The Applicant states that because his recruiter indicated on his initial application that he was not a sleepwalker and the Applicant indicated on a subsequent form that he was a sleepwalker he was removed from the Navy Seal program and his rate was changed to ST. As a result his mental state, attitude, and ambition were affected, leading to low self-esteem and alcoholism. The Applicant indicates he was unable to make rational decisions in addition to being immaturity.

The factors mentioned by the Applicant do not mitigate his misconduct. The Applicant was counseled for his misconduct as evidenced by the retention warnings issued on 881129 and 890330, giving him ample opportunity to correct his behavior. The Applicant failed to comply with the conditions of the retention warnings as evidenced by his third NJP on 890427 for disobeying a lawful order. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question. No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of this discharge. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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 can be considered. Examples of documentation to forward to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate). At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.
He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00208

    Original file (ND01-00208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.921210: Retention Warning from [SSC, GLAKES, IL]: Advised of deficiency (Article 86: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place od duty, to wit: Instructor Prep room, Bldg 616. He was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to discharge him with an OTH, was given his rights, and he waived all rights, except to obtain copies of documents. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00056

    Original file (ND04-00056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 880629: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement.Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction to Bldg 334 SSC GLAKES, IL for 14 days, extra duty for 14 days. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01018

    Original file (ND00-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the applicant’s issue 6, the Board In the applicant’s issue 8, the Board does not have the authority to grant “clemency.” The Board reviews the propriety (did the USN/USMC follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with the USN/USMC guidance or was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge. At this time, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00251

    Original file (ND01-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.931123: [USS SPARTANBURG COUNTY (LST-1192)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.931123: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01295

    Original file (ND02-01295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870917: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00105

    Original file (ND01-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (3pgs) Response Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Congressional correspondence, dated 22 March 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: NONE Inactive: NONE Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890412 Date of Discharge: 920427 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00040

    Original file (ND01-00040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to reenlistment eligible RE-1. This is a request to have the review board evaluate my service record. The Board found the applicant’s discharge accurately described his service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01040

    Original file (ND04-01040.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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00473

    Original file (ND03-00473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00473 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030124. As the situation became worse I tried to transfer Divisions, and was accepted on several occasions into ADP by the accepting Division’s Officer, on the two occasions that I ran request chits to be transferred I was always denied by my Chain of Command, and I was never allowed to walk my request any higher than the FSO/CMC level; when I requested to speak to the Captain I was told that I could...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00155

    Original file (ND01-00155.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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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,...