Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00473
Original file (ND03-00473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSN(SW), USN
Docket No. ND03-00473

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030124. 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 remove pattern of misconduct. 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 20040114. 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 and the reason for discharge was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 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,

I C_ S_ F ( Applicant ): enlisted into the United States Navy on 29JULY 1999.
During my first year of enlistment I proved my character, dedication, and potential to the Navy. I enlisted as an E- I and acted as Master at Arms in “A” School. In addition, I received Honor Grad and top scores in my Class, (which allowed me first pick of Orders) and within my first year 1 was promoted twice to E-2 and then once again to E-4. I accomplished this through hard work, dedication, and firm and fair support through my Chain of Command. I could not have done it if it was not for the proper support and mentoring I received from my Superior Officers Enlisted and Commissioned. I also showed ambition after reporting to my Ship, My Quals were met in a timely manner upon reporting to my Command i.e. Basic DC! Fire Fighting, 3M,and Basic CPR; As my interest in being a Soldier I also received qualifications for Arms 9MM, and M-16.
Although I accomplished all this, I regret that I lacked basic responsibility at that time and on many occasions I was late reporting to duty. I accepted responsibility for my actions and served many days of EMI on my scheduled days off as a result of this inappropriate behavior. In addition, I committed to correcting my performance, however, through time it became apparent that there had developed a bias for myself that was not present in my other Shipmates. As I developed into a responsible Sailor and strived to resume my prior character of service I was continually struck down by my Chain of Command and not given the proper chance to excel in my Division.
I would be pulled into the office for minute discrepancies, counseled by sometimes multiple staff and then written up on multiple Counseling Chits, all the while being threatened with Captains Mast and recommendations to be separated from the Navy.
 Even if I had witnesses to verify my innocence it was still of no importance, they too ran the risk of repercussions for speaking up for me. I once went to Restricted Muster and received three Counseling Chits for being U.A., even after my FSA and the Master at Arms verified that I was present. If I was in at 0502 1 would be made to serve a day of EMI, while my superiors and/or peers would not be required be in the Galley until 0530-0545 . I tried on many occasions to implement the proper procedures that I was taught in Boot Camp and in “A” School, but was continuously harassed by my Senior Chief and my FSO;I tried on many occasions to resolve issues with them and the parties involved to no avail. I wrote many requests to speak to the Captain, on each request was interrogated about the issues and concerns that I wanted to discuss with the Captain; when I expressed that my concern was with them I was told that it would not be approved, on later instances I would declare that it was of private issue, I would then be told that it would be sent up but not approved, it would later come back denied from the CMC’s level. (On the two occasions that I spoke with the Command Master Chief, I was told that my problems were not valid or important, and that he would not waste the Captains time with my issues.) I was also criticized and told that I did not belong in the Navy and that I was a waste of Tax Payers Money. As the situation became worse I tried to transfer Divisions, and was accepted on several occasions into ADP by the accepting Division’s Officer, on the two occasions that I ran request chits to be transferred I was always denied by my Chain of Command, and I was never allowed to walk my request any higher than the FSO/CMC level; when I requested to speak to the Captain I was told that I could not. Through time harassment was carried on in various shapes and forms, infringements on my rights and biased treatment. For example, I was denied Leave on several occasions because I was told that I did not deserve it, In addition, I was told to remove my Crows because I did not deserve to wear them; I was not recognized for my accomplishment of completing ESWS, (which I did later receive because I provided proof upon my check out to the processing PN) I was made to report for duty two hours earlier than any Sailor in my Division, I was denied E-4 Exam because I did not deserve it and was placed on permanent Paint Crew while others in my Division were rotated . During my time onboard, I was treated in an unprofessional and disrespectful manner to the Uniform and as a Human Being. Almost everyone that I went to no one wanted to get involved, conveniently forgetting the Core Values of HONOR, COURAGE, and COMMITMENT; those few who also felt that I was being treated unfairly and attempted to or did assist received biased treatment thereafter.
An investigation was held and determined that there was no bias do to the fact that the Perpetrators and/or new Recruits where the only Personnel interviewed; at no time were members of my Watch or any people that I named during my interview questioned. On the occasions that I reported incidents to Legal I was told that there was nothing that could be done or would receive reprimands in the form of Counseling Chits and/or threatening comments and promises.
I was finally removed from my division by the order of the C.O. due to these issues, but I was still not allowed to go to the division which I showed ambition and the desire to learn and who offered to accept me on the two previous occasions, I instead was sent to Deck Dept where I would then be subject to various forms of disrespect, only to be sent back to my previous Division S-2 as an FSA; There I would endure more of the same treatment as before but in a more humiliating degree, I was constantly told that I was no longer an MS and that I could not wear the uniform.
This continued throughout my career on board my Ship (18 months) and was in fact the cause of much stress that lead to my use with Alcohol and ultimately to my discharge.
I received a General due to the fact that I went to Captains Mast, and the circumstances that lead to my Captains Mast were harassment and biased treatment.
I have since been out of the Military and have held full-time Employment and part-time Employment coinciding with no problems of attendance, or any of the defects of character that I was accused of during my career onboard of my Ship.
I have been in fact a model Citizen and Employee, which shows to prove exactly where the defect was.
I am asking for the Boards review on my character of Discharge to be moved to an Honorable, and feel confident that with a thorough investigation of the facts the truth will be found and justice will be done.
I thank the Board for its valuable time and consideration of my case.
Sincerely,
 C_ S_ F_”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant
Character/job reference, undated
Certificate of training, dated December 17, 1999
Certificate of appreciation
AETC Commander’s Award, dated December 17, 1999
Honor Graduate certificate, dated December 17, 1999
Mess Management Specialist “A” School certificate, dated December 17, 1999
Eleven pictures
Memorandum from the Desk of the Command Master Chief, dated May 1, 2001
Special Request/Authorization, dated May 4, 2001
Special Request/Authorization, dated May 1, 2001
Special Request/Authorization, dated May 4, 2001
Special Request/Authorization, dated May 1, 2001
Eleven pages from Applicant’s service record
Authorization form, expires June 30, 1985
Letter from a doctor, dated October 14, 1984
Note from a doctor, undated
Treatment diary, dated March 14, 2001 – May 26, 2001
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     990720 - 990729  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990730               Date of Discharge: 010601

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 02
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 46

 Highest Rate: MS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                          Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, OSR, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

* No Marks Found
 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000320:  Applicant admitted to Alcohol Treatment Facility. Initial Diagnosis: Axis I: alcohol dependence with physiological dependence. R/O Major depressive disorder.
000409:  Applicant disenrolled from intensive outpatient treatment at the Alcohol Treatment Facility, U.S. Naval Hospital Rota due to continued alcohol use while in treatment. Final Diagnosis: Alcohol dependence with physiological dependence.
000905:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Fail to go to place of duty on 0400-0530, 0800-0950, 1005-1110, 000827.
         Award: Forfeiture of $586 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to MSSN. Forfeiture suspended for 1 month. No indication of appeal in the record.
000905:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You absented yourself you’re your place of duty at 0400, 0940, and 1005 on 000827. This conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline as evidenced by your Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment of 000905.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

001107:  Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO’s NJP dated 000905 due to continued misconduct.

001107:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 1800-2230, 001009.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 21 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
010504:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and alcohol rehabilitation failure.
010504:  Applicant advised of 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

010514:  Commanding Officer recommended 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 20010601 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 Applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations, that he was treated unfairly and received biased treatment, do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for failure to go to place of duty and for unauthorized absence, thus substantiating the misconduct for which the Applicant was separated. The summary of service clearly documents pattern of misconduct was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore consider his discharge and reason for discharge was proper and equitable. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00460

    Original file (ND02-00460.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00460 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. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00736

    Original file (ND01-00736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FSM requests equitable relief in the manner as noted above, he believes the discharge currently held was unfair and given without due consideration to his previous good service and high proficiency marks. On the issue of a change of RE-4 code, as we realize this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Discharge Review Board, we ask that the agency notify the FSM and advise him to complete the appropriate application, so this issue can be brought to the Navy Board of Corrections of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00179

    Original file (MD03-00179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00179 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. This is what motivated my command to not only get me out of the Marine Corp as an alcohol treatment failure but to include the characterization of pattern of misconduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01100

    Original file (ND03-01100.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable Discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01248

    Original file (ND99-01248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Alcohol was an every day part of my life. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement form applicant Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 960530 - 961104 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 961105 Date of Discharge: 980918 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01104

    Original file (ND03-01104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the available 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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00836

    Original file (MD01-00836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION [Failure to obey orders. 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).Issues 1, 2 and 7.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00933

    Original file (ND04-00933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00933 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040518. I tried my best to be the man the Navy wanted but because of my medical problems which began with a fractured wrist the very first week on a ship. Appeal denied 990402.No Discharge Package PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990402 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01058

    Original file (MD02-01058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Dear Chairperson:After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by the Applicant, in his request that he be given the opportunity to upgrade his (Under Other Than Honorable Conditions) Discharge to a Honorable Discharge. The (FSM) conduct during that term of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01146

    Original file (ND01-01146.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1) Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980402: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 5 Mar 98. 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...