Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00278
Original file (ND03-00278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00278

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021209. 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. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031121. 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/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative ( American Legion):
“1 . (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.”

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)     910425 - 910714  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910715               Date of Discharge: 921231

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 61

 Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.60 (1)    Behavior: 2.60 (1)                OTA: 3.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, BATTLE"E"

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 8

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920224:  Civil Conviction: [General District Court Criminal Division Municipal Center] for possession of alcohol (minor).
 Sentence: $10.00 fine plus $24.00 court cost.
920423:  Retention Warning from [USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71)]: Advised of deficiency (UA from unit.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

920423:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (6 specifications); Spec 1: UA from unit 0530, 920303 to 0530, 920304; Spec 2: UA from unit 0530, 920306 to 1830, 920306; Spec 3: UA from unit 0530, 920307 to 0700, 920312; Spec 4: UA from unit 0530, 920316 to 0705, 920317; Spec 5: UA from unit 0530, 920322 to 0645, 920322; Spec 6: UA from unit 1000, 920331.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 25 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
921201:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit 0700, 921004 to 0300, 921005, violation of UCMJ, Article 109: Property other than military property of the U.S., to wit: willfully damage a 1985 brown buick regal by causing damage to the head light area, of some value, the property of AA D_ A. G_, on 921003, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation of a 1985 brown buick regal on 921003.
Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
921207:  [USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT] notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct [Extracted from CO’s message].
921207:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights [Extracted from CO’s message].
921215:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

921222:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19921231 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: T here 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief is not warranted.

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, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00960

    Original file (ND02-00960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00960 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020624, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030214. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00484

    Original file (ND02-00484.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. CA action 911030: Sentence approved and ordered executed.911116: Released from confinement and returned to full duty. Applicant declared a deserter on 920207 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0545, 920107 from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).920424: Report of Return of Deserter.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00094

    Original file (ND00-00094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS but the reason should be corrected to say PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Applicant declared a deserter 98MAR13, having been an unauthorized absentee since 1130 98FEB10, from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71).980616: Surrendered at Personnel Support Activity, MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL. The names, and votes of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00453

    Original file (ND04-00453.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :940622: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 Specs.). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00008

    Original file (ND99-00008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.890306: USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.890306: Applicant advised of his rights and having not consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00352

    Original file (ND02-00352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.881007: Vacate reduction to FA awarded at CO's NJP dated 6 Apr 86 due to continued misconduct.881007: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly on 29 Sep 88. The Applicant’s summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct. Although the Board was impressed with the Applicant’s continuing educational pursuits,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00658

    Original file (ND04-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION A FEW MONTHS HAD GONE BY AND I TOLD FIRST CLASS T_ THAT I DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH PETTY OFFICER W_. SO I DIDN’T LIKE WHAT HE WAS SAYING TO ME, SO I FINISHED THE JOB AND WENT BACK TO MY DIVISION.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00208

    Original file (ND01-00208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.921210: Retention Warning from [SSC, GLAKES, IL]: Advised of deficiency (Article 86: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place od duty, to wit: Instructor Prep room, Bldg 616. He was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to discharge him with an OTH, was given his rights, and he waived all rights, except to obtain copies of documents. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00263

    Original file (ND00-00263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt instructed to stop drinking.950120: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 20Jan95. At that time the hospital staff did not know that the patient’s command had received discharge authority with a separation date of 29 Apr 95 and had arranged for him to be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01189

    Original file (ND03-01189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.