Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00208
Original file (ND03-00208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-CTASA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00208

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021121, 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated:
“1. After six months at sea aboard the USS CHOSIN as the only CTA onboard, I received a good eval and had a great time on WESTPAC. Six months after returning to Monterey I was discharged. This was not because of poor work performance or lack of rate knowledge. This was because of a devastating personality conflict that every staff member witnessed. Attached is the remarks made by my LPO YN1 (Ret) T__ J. W__.”

“I am now trying to be a Modesto Police Officer and am doing great in the academy, but I would like to hang an honorable discharge on my wall instead of a general discharge because of a personality conflict.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated November 10, 2002
 Copy of DD Form 214
Enlisted Report and Counseling Record, dated September 25, 1997
Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated December 12, 2002
Letter from Applicant to Board of Naval Corrections, not dated.
Letter from YN1(RET) T__ J. W__ to Inspector General, DON, dated January 5,
1999
Letter from CTI3 O__ M. P__ to Naval Security Group Command, dated August
19, 1998.
Letter from Applicant to Naval Security Group Detachment, Monterey, dated April 21,
1998
Letter from Applicant to Jewelers National Bank, dated April 27, 1998
Letter from Applicant to Mr. S__, dated April 27, 1998
Memorandums For The Record from Applicant (2), dated April 28, 1998
Memorandum For The Record, dated April 29, 1998
Letter from OIC, Naval Security Group Detachment, Monterey to OIC, PSD, Monterey,
not dated.
Letter from P__ C__, not dated
Final Grades Spring 1999/2000, Fall 2001/2002, dated December 14, 2002
Employee Performance Report, dated October 25, 1999
Letter from City of Modesto Police Personnel Department, dated December 6, 2002
Letter from T__ C__, dated December 13, 2002
Letter from B__ T__, dated December 9, 2002
Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated December 18, 2002
Employee Performance Appraisal, Ahern Rentals, Dated August 25, 2000
Employee Performance Appraisal, Ahern Rentals, Dated June 25, 2001
Letter from Criminal Justice Training Center, dated December 16, 2002
Letter from C__ B__, dated December 12, 2002
Applicant resume, dated May 19, 2002
Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated January 4, 2003
Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated April 24, 2003
Certificate from Basic Law Enforcement Academy, not dated
Modesto College Educational Plan, dated March 31, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950324 - 950605  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950606               Date of Discharge: 980611

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 52

 Highest Rate: CTASA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

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

 Military Decorations: NDM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 16

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT), authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960301:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation. Award: Forfeiture of $87 per month for 1 month. No indication of appeal in the record.



 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

9711XX   Unauthorized Absence (EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT’S LETTER TO THE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS)

971209   Surrender from Unauthorized Absence (EXTRACTED FROM APPLICANT’S LETTER TO THE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS)

980611:  DD-214 lists dates of loss time due to Unauthorized Absence (971124 – 971209)

         Missing discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980611 under general conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable (C and D) .

In the Applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that normally , to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While the applicant may feel that his chain of command performed unjustly, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service. His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP), and an Unauthorized Absence . The Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his pattern of misconduct.

It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. An upgrade to honorable conditions is inappropriate. 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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 | 1997_Navy | ND97-01339

    Original file (ND97-01339.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 810114-810625 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 810626 Date of Discharge: 840427 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 09 27 Inactive: None [EXTRACTED FROM CO’S MESSAGE]840307: Medical evaluation for drug abuse found the applicant to be not drug dependent. The record clearly documents the basis for the separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-03171

    Original file (BC-2000-03171.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for the applicant’s dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02043

    Original file (BC-2003-02043.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for her dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated, her record...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01391

    Original file (ND03-01391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00332

    Original file (MD01-00332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00332 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. While the NDRB respects the fact that the applicant tried, her service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02009

    Original file (BC-2003-02009.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated again, he is asking the AFBCMR to remove the EPR, period of report: 26 July 2000 through 4 December 2000, from his records based on the grounds that it was unjust and a reprisal action. Then after he got the EPR and saw the EPR, that’s when he filed the Air Force...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00001

    Original file (ND99-00001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the personal appearance discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. Fined $547.920115: Naval Mobile Construction Battalion SEVENTY-FOUR 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 CO’s NJP’s held 7 and 22 August 1991 and Civil Conviction on 14 January 1992; and Convenience of the Government due to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500859

    Original file (ND0500859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00859 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050425. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. I believe Block 24 (Character of Service) of my DD214 is inequitable because it is based on a single incident during my 8 years, 8 months active duty military service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01258

    Original file (ND02-01258.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990903 with a characterization of general (under honorable) conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence that the Applicant is living a drug free life style, are examples of verifiable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00628

    Original file (ND04-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20030207 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (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...