Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00511
Original file (ND03-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SKSA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00511

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030204. 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 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 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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I feel that my discharged should be changed due to the fact that I served my country proud and did a great job of it. I also feel that I should be able to use my Montgomery GIB to attend school to make a brighter future for myself. I would also like to re enter the military.

I have never been in any trouble I have a clean record and I am a 25 year old single parent. Could you please reconsider.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940124 - 940912  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940913               Date of Discharge: 970805

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 10 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rate: SKSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (4)    Behavior: 2.00 (4)                OTA: 2.73
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR with 1 Star

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960716:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Go from appointed place of duty, on 0055-0300, 960526, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failed to obey a lawful order on 960526, to wit: wearing civilian clothes, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Make to SK1 S_, a false official statement on 960526, to wit: “I am not in a duty status.”
         Award: Forfeiture of $490 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SKSA. Forfeiture for 1 month and reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
970506:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121:
         Specification: Larceny of $20.00 on 970304.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: Opening a personal mail on 970304.
         Finding: to Charge I and II the specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $369.00, reduced to SKSA.
         CA action 970513: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

970516:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment and summary court-martial, to wit: failure to obey lawful order from a Chief Petty Officer, making a false official statement, larceny of personal property, and opening a personal mail.
970519:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
970521:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

970602:  Applicant’s counsel requested suspension of discharge.

 970616:  Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

 970623:  Commanding Officer disapproved request for suspended discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970805 under honorable conditions (general) 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. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by one nonjudicial punishment and a summary court-martial for a serious offense. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. Relief denied.

 The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects her service to her country. 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.

The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of her 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00193

    Original file (ND99-00193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.970918: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP of 970918 for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful written order) and UCMJ Article 125 (forcible sodomy), and by reason of homosexual conduct as evidenced by member engaging in homosexual acts.970924: Applicant advised of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00778

    Original file (ND04-00778.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00460

    Original file (ND00-00460.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    971121: Applicant's statement.971203: Commanding officer directed discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 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 issue states: “My discharge was inequitable because there are no charges or counseling sheets providing that I committed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00280

    Original file (ND00-00280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980304 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00628

    Original file (ND99-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00628 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990406, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable general/under honorable conditions. 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 requested her discharge be upgraded to general but provided no propriety, equity or post...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00624

    Original file (ND00-00624.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Applicant refused non-judicial punishment.981008: Vacate suspended reduction to HN awarded at CO's NJP of 8Jun98 due to continued misconduct.981020: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00918

    Original file (ND01-00918.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00918 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to Parenthood. 000720: Applicant charged with violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0730, 19Jun00 to 0730, 28Jun00 and violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully and falsely alter a leave request/authorization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00431

    Original file (ND00-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01429

    Original file (ND03-01429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01429 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 general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020405: Charge Sheet: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 120: Rape Seaman Recruit on 011123.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00405

    Original file (ND01-00405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to support the claim made in this issue. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of her not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive...