Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00413
Original file (ND03-00413.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ASAR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00413

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030116. 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 20031215. 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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. It’s been a year since I filed my first application to review my discharge and respectfully request to change it to honorable. I made several attempts to contact my precious command to ask a copy of my administrative discharge package and no record found. If you review my records it will show you I enlisted on Aug 95 it should be EAOS or discharged should be Aug 99, I was Capt Mast twice for unauthorized absent which I called my supervisor and notify him the situation. I was stationed at Whidbey Island WA went on leave at San Diego first incident, it was airline rep error why I didn’t make the flight I was at the airport on time for my flight but for some reason my name was not on the computer, I called my supervisor when I’m still in the airport with the airline rep and let him speak with him but my supervisor is not available we left a message I waited in the airport just to see if I can catch a flight but no luck. They sent me to mast for that 2 nd incident I had a car broke down called my supervisor also still they sent me to Capt Mast for the second time. I was thinking why is this happining. My command AIMD after the 2 nd Captain Mast ask me if I want to get out in the Navy. I gave the navy 4 good yrs”.

“My discharge was improper because I did what I have to do, I informed my supervisor on the incident they said UA (unauthorized absent) I called my supervisor, I was Capt Mast, punishment reduce of rank but not ask to be separated. My command AIDM know I had a little marital problem, so they ask me if I want to get out the service. I said yes I enlisted 95 Aug 29 sign for 4 yrs of service got a good conduct medal on the 3 rd year. So I really don’t think misconduct is the reason for my separation that’s probably why my command doesn’t have a copy of my discharge package.”

 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)     950822 - 950828  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950829               Date of Discharge: 990920

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 00 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (9 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: ASAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, JMUC, HSM, CGMUC, NMOSR, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 3

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

GENERAL (UNDER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980731:  UA from 0700-1100, 980731 (4 hours).

990728:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 990705-990707 (2days), violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful written instruction.
         Award: Reduction in rate to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

990823:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 0700, 990809, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Intermediate Maintenance Department, NAS Whidbey Island, and did remain so absent until on or about 0700, 990810.
Award: Vacate suspended reduction in rate of 990728 with additional reduction in rate. No indication of appeal in the record.
990823:  Reduction to next inferior paygrade awarded at CO’s NJP dated 990728 vacated due to further misconduct.

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990920 with a general (under honorable conditions) 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 NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The applicant's blatant violation of the UCMJ constituted a serious offense. The applicant's DD Form 214, Block 26, Separation Code, indicates he was separated for misconduct based on the commission of a serious offense. No other Separation Code, or Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Separation Code, or the Narrative Reason for Separation would be inappropriate. The Applicant has not presented sufficient credible evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 civilian life subsequent to leaving naval service. 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, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

 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. 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 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | ND03-01039

    Original file (ND03-01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. I was completely honest at my Mast, and lost my “A” school, but had the other charges suspended for 6 months. I also feel that based on my 47 months of excellent service, my promotion to E-5 , my good conduct medal, my 2 western pacific deployments, and my Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist award, my discharge should be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00253

    Original file (ND04-00253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 this Applicant’s petition.The service record is incomplete. No...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500110

    Original file (ND0500110.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION While the Applicant’s medical record clearly documents the seriousness of the injury the Applicant sustained, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant’s misconduct was a result of those injuries.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01163

    Original file (ND03-01163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01163 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030626. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to re-enlist. Any I honorably turned myself in paying my own way from Miami to Chicago, after being held at separation for a while until I went to Captain’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01425

    Original file (ND03-01425.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “My Name is T_ C_ (Applicant). At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00375

    Original file (ND00-00375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 981103: Memorandum from Command Chaplain stating applicant made a public statement to him claiming he is bisexual.981116: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.981116: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00586

    Original file (ND04-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00586 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00883

    Original file (ND99-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00883 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01250

    Original file (ND03-01250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I then decided to extend my tour of duty for another two years to NALF San Clemente, which was the closest duty station to San Diego where I decided to complete my schooling. Not too long after I arrived in San Diego we found out that Alma was pregnant, but three months after, she called again with a bad news, she had a miscarriage.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00841

    Original file (ND02-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00841 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was told by navy legal office on Guam that an admin board was to be pick at random, but the Capt pick the board himself, I was also told that one member of my board was suppose to be from another command so as to be impartial this was not done everyone on my board was from my command. The possibility that one of his...