Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00134
Original file (ND03-00134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMEAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00134

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021023, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. My discharge for General should be upgraded because although there were a couple of minor write ups, I have never been to Captain’s Mast nor anything has been serious enough to warrant strong action against me I am also enrolling at Southeast College of Technology and unable to use my GI Bill that I contributed to for my education benefits.

 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)     941018 - 941026  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941027               Date of Discharge: 970425

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 05 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 76

 Highest Rate: AMEAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.00 (3)    Behavior: 1.33 (3)                OTA: 1.83

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM (Desert Storm/Desert Shield), SASM, NUC, AFSM, SSDR, NM, LOA

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620260.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

9605xx:  Failed PRT.

9610xx:  Failed PRT.

970424:  Evaluation Report & Counseling Record: Comment on Performance: Evaluation submitted on the occasion of Airman Apprentice H_’s separation from military service. Airman Apprentice H_’s performance is significantly below that of a typical Airman Apprentice. He requires constant supervision to accomplish basic tasks. He has displayed an ability to perform quality work, but his lethargic attitude and lack of a work ethic render him a burden to his work center and division. Airman Apprentice H_’s is not recommended for advancement or retention due to his failure to meet physical readiness standards. Specific shortcomings include: Failed April 97 PRT (3 rd ), Assigned extra military instruction for second letter of indebtedness, Counseled for absence from his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, Counseled for sleeping during watch; Counseled for insubordination, when addressing senior enlisted personnel.

970425:  Officer In Charge, Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Station Norfolk, VA found the applicant physically qualified for separation.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970425 with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) for physical standard (failed minimum prescribed physical readiness (PRT) standards (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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).

 Issue 1: The Applicant states he should receive an upgrade because he was never awarded non-judicial punishment (NJP). The Board disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge. When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A characterization of service of general (under honorable) conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct and performance constitutes a departure of that expected of a Sailor. Even though the Applicant was never awarded NJP he was counseled for several deficiencies including sleeping on watch, insubordination, and indebtedness. The Applicant’s inability to meet the minimum standards for both behavior and performance warranted a general characterization in accordance with MILSPERSMAN article 3610250.2b. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational 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 could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. 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, 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 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3620260, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF WEIGHT CONTROL FAILURE.

B. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97 Article 3420440, HEALTH AND PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.
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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND99-01201 (1)

    Original file (ND99-01201 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01201

    Original file (ND99-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Applicant's Statement to the Board Copy of DD Form 214 VA' decision on Applicant's claim dtd Sep 1, 1999 Copy of applicant's medical record (154 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 891209 - 951206 HON 860603 - 891208 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850607 - 860602 COG Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00449

    Original file (ND99-00449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PHYSICAL STANDARDS, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-170 (formerly Article 3620260).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980504 with a general (under honorable conditions) for failure of the physical readiness test due to not meeting the prescribed physical readiness standards (A). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00284

    Original file (ND04-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Light duty for 14 days.930413: Medical Record: No PRT spring cycle. 951204: Counseling: Applicant advised that he failed to meet the physical readiness standards due to being overfat (body fat in excess of 22%) and placed on the command’s sponsored physical conditioning program.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01037

    Original file (ND03-01037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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) 950308 - 950328 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950329 Date of Discharge:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00492

    Original file (ND04-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00492 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040203. 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: USMC Not able to determine HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 920114 - 920405 COG Active: USN 920406 - 940821 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00929

    Original file (ND99-00929.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00929 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990629, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. During that time I was denied leave several times, because the XO and CO said I failed the PRT. In Washington state upon being discharged I was told that I could receive all my VA benefits including the GI Bill for School with this General (under honorable conditions).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01130

    Original file (ND02-01130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.Department of Veterans Affairs, to Applicant, dated Jul 23, 2002, providing the DD Form 293 to the Applicant PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950221 - 950314 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950315 Date of Discharge: 980310 Length of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00538

    Original file (ND99-00538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I request the review board change my discharge to an Honorable discharge.. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Referral for Civilian Medical Care dtd 10/29/96 (Diagnosis - Lateral Meniscus tears) Weymouth MRI Diagnostic Centers Exam Report of 11/18/96 Orthopedic Clinic, Naval Hospital, Groton Consultation Health Record page Applicant's Separation Physical Examination of 9 Dec...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00804

    Original file (ND04-00804.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19950526 with an honorable discharge for weight control failure or physical standards (failed to meet the minimum prescribed physical readiness (PRT) standards for three consecutive physical readiness tests) (A and B). You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.The names,...