Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00159
Original file (ND03-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00159

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021105, 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 20031003. 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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

1. “First of all, let me begin by saying that I enjoyed my time in the Navy however short a period it might have been. I graduated in the top of my division in boot camp. Did well in ATD school and proceeded to a promising career in the fleet. My only issue with the Navy was and is the dishonesty of my recruiters who used less than honest means of obtaining my enlistment. My recruiter promised me a position as a core man in the medical field upon enlistment. It wasn’t until I was sent to my ship that I was informed that I would not be a coreman but a seaman on deck. I would not be have had a problem with this rank and rate if I would have wanted or chosen this out of my own free will. Then, upon telling my captain of my concerns, I was told that all my contract guaranteed was a deck seaman. I told him what about my recruiters honor, courage and commitment? Are these the values my recruiter used to conveniently leave his promises of core school out of my contract? My captain said in four years when my enlistment was up I would appreciate the fact that he hade me stay in. Four years, when you are not with your kids, and doing some thing you do not have your whole heart in is a long time. While I was there I still performed my duties to the best of my ability. But the absence of my children was too much to bear at my young age. This shouldn’t hinder me from moving on with my life. Gentlemen of the board, I appreciate your time. Hopefully you will see it fit to upgrade my discharge. Even if honorable is unacceptable, general is sufficient. Other than honorable will be just that. Thank you. Sincerely,”

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

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19960530 - 19961007               ELS
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19961015 – 19961022      COG
          Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19961023             Date of Discharge: 19970620

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 07 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 66

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: MMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 50*

*Extracted from Dates of Time Lost During This Period on the DD Form 214.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970410:  NJP. No further information found in service record. [Date extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604.]
970501:  NJP. No further information found in service record. [Date extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604.]
970514:  NJP. No further information found in service record. [Date extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604.]
970620:  DD Form 214 Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970620 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 his recruiter promised that he would attend corpsman school and the applicant ended up as a deck seaman, and being absent from his children at his young age was too much for him to bear.

The Applicant’s discharge package was not available. The only documentation available is from NAVPERS form 1070/604, which lists three NJPs but provides no details. The Board will assume regularity in the conduct of government affairs.

 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, relief is denied.
The applicant is reminded that he is 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 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 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01129

    Original file (ND99-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980924: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) on 2 April 1998, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 87 (Missing Movement) on 18 June 1998, and Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) on 19 September 1998.980924: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01410

    Original file (ND03-01410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I felt that the Navy had let me down I realized that it was wrong and I hated the Navy and their ways after that day I wanted out and I felt to just get out I would just go UA for a while and they would let me go. I swear to you she did push me and I can’t believe how they handled it and all I want to do is go back into time and do things different, but I can’t so I went a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00933

    Original file (ND04-00933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00933 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040518. I tried my best to be the man the Navy wanted but because of my medical problems which began with a fractured wrist the very first week on a ship. Appeal denied 990402.No Discharge Package PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990402 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01438

    Original file (ND03-01438.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01438 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030905. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general(under honorable). After I my time in the brig I went before the Captain and was given the option either to stay in the Navy or be discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00263

    Original file (ND01-00263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There were two shipmates on the top level, I told them to tell Seaman C_ that I was on level three waiting for him if they saw him. I told them to go to medical and tell them man down. That was the last time I saw Seaman C_ until I was in Norfolk waiting discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00050

    Original file (ND02-00050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service record was reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. She is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00872

    Original file (ND02-00872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00872 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 001205: Vacate suspended sentence of forfeiture of $337.00 and extra duty for 14 days.001215: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (1) Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty on 0730, 001127 to 0931, 001128 (1 day), to wit: Regimental Aid Station, (2) Unauthorized absence 0730, 001129 to 0937, 001204 (5...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00944

    Original file (ND01-00944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Brief/letter from applicant dated July 17, 2001 Character reference dated March 13, 2001 Character reference dated May 18, 2000 Character reference dated May 26, 2000 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 920213 - 930131 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00501

    Original file (ND02-00501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00501 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Board will not grant relief on this issue.