Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00228
Original file (ND03-00228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00228

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021118, 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 20031017. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
“1. My name is D_ E. P_ now age 32. I am requesting a change of a General discharge that I received in December 1989 from the U.S. Navy. The reason being in plain English. I was young and stupid. I had gone into a bar on base with a few seaman and drank myself into an alcoholic stupor which put me in a life threatening situation by alcoholic poisoning in the U.S. Naval Hospital Groton Conn. I was directed upon release to Alcoholic Anonymous and counseling which I completed. Family problems at that time were the basic cause of my problem which was that they did not want me in the service, since the incident and subsequent Captain’s Mast that resulted in the General discharge. I have regretted the incident even up to the present time. Upon discharge I went to work, school and became a church member and productive member of society and remain the same at this time. Attached are a few letters to verify this statement. I sincerely regret my past conduct and would hope that my discharge would be upgraded to Honorable and in so doing I am reconsidering re-enlisting in the U.S. Navy again to serve my country with honor and pride if given the chance.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Copy of Partial Enlisted Evaluation
Employment Reference Letter from Former Boss dated October 18, 2002
Character Reference Letter from G_ E. S__
Character Reference Letter Senior Pastor First Baptist Church of Rio Rancho dated October 28, 2002
Employment/Character Reference Letter dated October 29, 2002
Employment Reference Letter dated October dated October 31, 2002
Copy of Kodak Photo Specialist Certificate dated March 1, 2002.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     881007 - 890605  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890606               Date of Discharge: 891205

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (1)    Behavior: 3.20 (1)                OTA : 3.20

 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890919:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: On or about 890826 failed to obey lawful order by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age of 21.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

890919:  DAAR indicates alcohol abuse, found alcohol dependent by medical officer, found amenable and eligible for treatment, recommended for separation not via VA hospital. Comments: This incident 890827 SMN was taken to the emergency room and admitted to hospital, SUBASE NLON for alcohol ingestion, BAL .155. 890919 NJP, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful orders, underage drinking at EM club. Awarded: Forfeiture of pay $200.00 pay per month for 2 months.

891011:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (failure to obey other lawful orders).
891011:  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 the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
891025:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

891110:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
891117:  Applicant declined in-patient treatment at VA hospital.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19891205 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

Issue 1. The Applicant states that he was young and stupid and he regrets the incident even up to this present time.

The Board recognizes the Applicant’s remorse and that he takes blame for his misconduct while on active duty. However, remorse is not grounds for which the Board will grant relief. Relief denied.

 Issue 2. The Applicant is considering reenlisting in the U.S. Navy to serve his country with honor and pride.

With regard to the Applicant’s expression of pride and a desire to reenlist, the NDRB has no input into reenlistment eligibility. The Applicant will have to contact a recruiting office to determine his eligibility for reenlistment.
Issue 3. The Applicant requests the Board to consider his post-service conduct in assessing the merits of his application for discharge upgrade.

The Board considered the post-service documentation provided and recognizes the character reference letters, and certificate he earned. While these documents demonstrate that the Applicant has made strides in establishing his credibility as a productive member of society these accomplishments do not mitigate the seriousness of his misconduct and therefore do not warrant recharacterization of his discharge. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Verifiable proof of 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, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance-free lifestyle are examples of verifiable documents that may be provided to receive consideration for relief based on post-service conduct.  


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 15560A), Change 8, effective
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01237

    Original file (ND03-01237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “Sec Auth.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense, is clearly documented in the service record. As of this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00078

    Original file (ND00-00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00078 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991019, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board determined that relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00453

    Original file (ND02-00453.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00453 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 921209: Applicant to unauthorized absence 1400, 9Dec92.921215: Applicant from unauthorized absence 1800, 15Dec92 (6 days/surrendered).930429: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed place of duty on 28Mar93, violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Drunk on duty on 28Mar93. PART...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00001

    Original file (ND03-00001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Board found no impropriety or inequity regarding the conduct of the Applicant’s special court-martial. Relief not warranted.The Applicant 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01331

    Original file (ND04-01331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00104

    Original file (ND01-00104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00104 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001030, 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s first issue states that his discharge was inequitable since it was based on “two isolated incidents, neither of which were...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00755

    Original file (ND99-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00755 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990310, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that t Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A.Naval Military...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00504

    Original file (ND01-00504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I were being consider for a medical review board. After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00325

    Original file (ND02-00325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00325 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020128, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I was standing outside the rear passenger door on the driver side when a meter maid style police car pulled up & told me to move the vehicle out of the middle of the street. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01242

    Original file (ND99-01242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :831215: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements on 7 Dec83, to wit: alter an official document by placing his own photograph on another service member's identification card. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is...