Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00137
Original file (ND03-00137.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00137

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021030, 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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

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)     920820 - 930817  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930818               Date of Discharge: 961206

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.80 (1)    Behavior: 4.00 (1)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 75

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950906:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit on 950623 until 950721 (28 days/S).
         Award: Forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

 960611:  Psychiatric Evaluation: SA J__ was diagnosed with a personality disorder with dependent and borderline traits. He was also evaluated for partner relationship problems and alcohol abuse. The attending psychiatrist, LT G. M__, MD advised the member receive level II treatment for substance abuse disorder.
960719:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 960717 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0530, 960613 from FCTCLANT DAM NECK, VA BEACH, VA.

960730:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by HASP on 960730 (0010) at 9527 21ST BAY ST APT 2A. Returned to military control 960730 (0200), At FCTCLANT DAM NECK, VA.

960801:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Did on or about 960613 to 960730 was UA (47 days/A).
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 30 days.
         CA action 960812: Sentence approved and ordered executed. The accused will be credited with 3 days confinement against the sentence to confinement.

960820:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
960820:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
960823:  Released from confinement.

 960911:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

960913:  Commanding Officer concurred with the recommendation of the board that the Applicant be discharged general (under 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 19961206 with a characterization of general (under 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 general (under honorable) conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and a court-martial conviction for unauthorized absence. 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 an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. 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 971212, 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01254

    Original file (ND02-01254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01254 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020906, 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, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :950330: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobey lawful...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00160

    Original file (ND99-00160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    951213: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 85: Deserter, (1) Specification: Desertion from 950724-951112(111days/A). 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. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00877

    Original file (ND02-00877.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My command told me there was no way that I could be reassigned. 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 Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00201

    Original file (ND00-00201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-BMSN, USN Docket No. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930415 - 930620 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930621 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00275

    Original file (ND00-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. No further information found in service record PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980313 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01168

    Original file (ND99-01168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. After four years of my discharge, I am asking for my honorable discharge. The NDRB found the applicant’s issue non decisional.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00868

    Original file (ND02-00868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please review my records and consider upgrading me to an Honorable discharge. The Applicant’s conduct, and not his time served, forms the primary basis in determining his characterization of service. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00431

    Original file (ND00-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01072

    Original file (ND99-01072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. I have no choice but to direct his separation with a General discharge, under honorable conditions. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00232

    Original file (ND00-00232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.