Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00331
Original file (ND03-00331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FCSR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00331

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021219. 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.

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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
1. “To whom it may concern,

All I have to say is on 1994Oct25 I was wrongfully accused of a incident that happened at the 7-11 store in which it caused me to be reduced in rank my rate taking away from me and for me to be look down upon by my peers. There I think with no involvement what so ever for what happen a fight broke out and I was found guilty for something in which I had no involvement in. I felt that things where happening to me because of my rate that I had no control of. Since then it was downhill but I survived. If you have time just take a look at that for me and tell me in writing if justice has been upheld. I know what I did after that was wrong. I paid for my wrongs with punishment but in doing good for so long. I think just as the other seaman that got sentenced for me it would have been also a slap on the wrist and would have received a lighter sentence.
Maybe I was immature in my actions taking and I blew my chances at succeeding in the military. If I had another chance I know this for certain that the path I took would have been one that was different. Before I was discharged even got a letter from an admiral signifying I was ready to have that chance. I don’t think though that one was ever given though. I hope that one would be given today so I can live the rest of my life with dignity.
Thank you,
A_ E_ V_ S_ (Applicant) ”
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)     920909 - 921018  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921019               Date of Discharge: 950724

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: FCSA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.80 (1)    Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA: 3.40

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, BER, NUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

940624:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from appointed place of duty on 2300, 940504, to wit: 2300 FCS/ORTS mandatory self study.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days, reduction to FCSR. Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
940627:  Retention Warning from AEGIS Training Center: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP of 24 Jun 94 for violation of UCMJ, Article 86.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
940907:  Civil Conviction: King George County Court (Criminal) for violation cursing and abuse of an officer.
 Sentence: Fine $275.00.
940909:  Civil Conviction: King George County Court (Domestic) for violation of domestic assault.
 Sentence: Fine $100.00, court cost, jail for 5 days. Jail suspended.
940929:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave on 940725 and 940806 to 940813 (7 days).
         Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. All punishments suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
950202:  Vacate suspended forfeiture of $450.00 for 1 month, and restriction and extra duty for 30 days due to continued misconduct.
950202:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny, to wit: steal a Sega remote arcade pad on 1730, 950130, a value of $19.00, the property of the Navy Exchange, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Simple assault M_ R_ by striking her with a open left hand, almost knocking her to the ground, while attempting to regain possession of his armed forces identification card on 1730, 950130
         Award: Forfeiture of $427.20 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to FCSR. No indication of appeal in the record.
950316:  USS LEYTE GULF (CG 55) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to civilian conviction.

950317:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.




950407:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, a pattern of misconduct, and civilian conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

950623:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

950717:  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 19950724 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 Board recognizes that the Applicant is remorseful for the poor judgment he exercised during his military career. However, the Board will not recharacterize a former member’s discharge because he realizes he made mistakes while serving his country. The Board will only change a discharge if it’s issuance is determined to have been inequitable or improper. The Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.
The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate).

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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96), 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 | ND02-01127

    Original file (ND02-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. FA (Applicant) (myself) was denied right to speak with commanding officer after going thru proper procedure, to discuss extenuating circumstances/2. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Statement from Applicant, dated October 29, 2002 Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01026

    Original file (ND02-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01026 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Industrial Maintenance Certificate, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00831

    Original file (ND02-00831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. 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).Responding to the Applicant’s two issues, both asking the Board to consider his post-service conduct, the Board At this time, however, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00500

    Original file (ND04-00500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00500 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040204. We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration.” 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) 911028 - 920908 COG Active: USN None Period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00458

    Original file (ND99-00458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :961024: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Willfully derelict in the performance of duties by sleeping in the #1 main machinery room while standing the shaft alley patrol watch. The applicant received a retention warning after the first NJP, but violated the same article a second time. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01330

    Original file (ND04-01330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.Review of the available records reflect that this former member maintained satisfactory...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00656

    Original file (ND02-00656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00656 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Upon reading this, for whoever it may concern, please understand I was young and made very bad decisions please consider my upgrade, because if...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00201

    Original file (ND99-00201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00201 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981119, 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, and change the re-enlistment code to RE-1. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 31 Highest Rate: RMSA Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00928

    Original file (ND99-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I have that the person or persons reading these reasons understand that at the time that I broke the rules of the U.S. Navy that I was going through a lot of difficult situations. No indication of appeal in the record.910516: Retention Warning from AIRANTISUBRON Three-Two: Advised of deficiency (Article 86 and Article 92. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01004

    Original file (ND00-01004.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01004 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000830, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 two issues requested an upgrade based on his post service...