Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00504
Original file (ND03-00504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00504

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030210. 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. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area. Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040311. 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, as corrected by the Board for Correction of Naval Records: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY - SOMNAMBULISM, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “The petitioner request that this Honorable Board review the enclosed document entitled “REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER NEW/MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR OTHER MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED.” That after such review, premises considered, relief be granted to petitioner as requested in the above name document.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
DD Form 149
 Request for reconsideration under new/material evidence or other matter not previously considered (5 pages)
Board for Correction of Naval Records review, Docket number 1609-02, dated May 10, 2002 (6 pages)
 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Letter from Applicant to Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated December 5, 2002
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from Applicant’s attorney, dated January 30, 2001
Decree confirming declaration as to change of name, dated October 2, 1991
Affidavit of Applicant’s, dated January 14, 2002
Bachelor of Science degree, dated June 6, 1999
University of Alabama transcript
National Honor Society in Psychology certificate, dated January 21, 1998
Juris Doctor degree, dated May 19, 2002
Instructions on how to read transcript
Character reference, dated January 11, 2002
Character reference, dated January 11, 2002
Character reference, dated January 28, 2002
Certificate
Certificate of good standing, dated June 24, 2001
Two pictures
 Two pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter from Applicant, dated February 28, 2003
Letter from Applicant, dated January 19, 2004
Certificate of Admission, The Supreme Court of Alabama, dated December 30, 2003
Letter to Applicant from Admissions Clerk, dated June 18, 2003


Letter to Applicant from Clerk of the Court, dated January 13, 2004
Letter to Applicant from Admissions Clerk, dated June 17, 2003
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880120 - 880301  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880302                        Date of Discharge: 890109

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 08
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17 Parental Consent                Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 9                                  AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (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)/OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS, NOT A DISABILITY INTERFERING WITH PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880620:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from tutor sessions 13, 14, 15 June 1988), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
880628:  NJP. No further information found in service record.

 880628:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disobeying lawful order from Lt and unauthorized absence from Content Area Retest at 1400), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
880629:  Restriction and extra duty awarded at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 880628 is hereby set aside.
890104:  Applicant referred to fleet mental health clinic for sleepwalking. [Extracted from BCNR’s decision dated 020510.]

890109:  Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability (somnambulism).

020510:  BCNR decision, docket 1609-02.

Discharge package missing from service record

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19890109 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to other physical/mental condition, not a disability interfering with performance of duty. (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: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that certain aspects of his childhood were a contributing factor, it does not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service. His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) and two retention warnings thus substantiating the general discharge . An upgrade to honorable conditions would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

 The Applicant's discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant's enlistment. Additionally, 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 the service. Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 5, effective 15 Jun 87 until 10 Jan 89), Article 3620200, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00024

    Original file (ND99-00024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submit to this Board, if there are no service member related negative conditions and that this discharge was enacted for the "convenience of the government" for a pre-existing medical condition, to respectfully consider the upgrading of this discharge to "honorable".” 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00725

    Original file (ND00-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 BCNR's ltr to Applicant dated Feb 23, 2000 advising applicant to petition NDRB PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951019 Date of Discharge: 970317 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 02...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00646

    Original file (ND01-00646.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged in 92 for sleepwalking. I know that if you sleepwalk you will be discharged from the Navy. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00474

    Original file (ND03-00474.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 medical. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C. The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00650

    Original file (ND01-00650.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt will be referred to Legal for admin separation for a Sleepwalking Disorder. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but inequitable (C and D).The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s service record, issues, and additional documentation and found the applicant’s service warranted characterization as honorable. The applicant’s record had no adverse information, and the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00020

    Original file (ND04-00020.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00020 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. Separation processing for failing to meet the physical readiness standard (obesity/PRT failure), Parenthood, or Personality Disorders may not be initiated until the member has been counseled by their command concerning deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected on an appropriate Page 13 service record entry. Members may be separated for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00044

    Original file (ND02-00044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00044 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Axis II: Paranoid features noted.971002: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due physical or mental conditions not necessarily amounting to disability but affecting potential for continued active duty in the naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01424

    Original file (ND03-01424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01424 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Medical problems impaired my ability to serve, as indicated on DD form 214 as the reason for separation.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00214

    Original file (ND02-00214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00214 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reenlistment code changed to anything other than an RE-5. I felt that the individual who "claimed" to have seen this event was doing so in collaboration with another to either have me removed from duty or they were highly mistaken. (Applicant) Documentation Only the service and medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00362

    Original file (ND99-00362.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant offered treatment from the VA.880502: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by NAVDRUGLAB San Diego CA dtg 012047Z. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880628 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing...