Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00512
Original file (ND03-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00512

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 listed Disabled American Veterans as his 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. On December 3, 1994 I was involved in an automobile accident, which nearly cut off my leg. I was on my way back home from Norfolk, Virginia. I had been UA for a few months, for several reasons including not getting in my “A” school because I would have to be transferred to a different command. I was also upset for not being allowed to return home before my little cousin died of Leukemia at the age of 16, regardless of several Red Cross messages stating his hospice care and requesting my presence. I returned to Norfolk after being UA to find that my ship was on a workup for two weeks. I decided to return home and wait for the ship to return. I stayed in Farmville, Virginia for a couple of days and set back towards Knoxville, Tennessee. I fell asleep and ran off the road. I was taken to Roanoke Memorial Hospital and remained there for two weeks until I was picked up by Navy personnel and transported to Portsmouth Naval Hospital. I was at Portsmouth until February and I was then transferred to medical holding. I was advised by Navy counselors not to appeal at court martial and to take the “Other than Honorable” discharge. I took the advice and was discharged in June of 1995. I was discharged with an external fixture still in my leg and all of my medical bills from Roanoke were my responsibility. While I was UA, I was accompanied by T_ S_, who was also assigned to the Roosevelt. He was actually in the accident with me, but was not injured. After I returned he remained UA. He on the other hand, was able to remain in the Navy, even after being gone longer. After my discharge I was faced with over $100,00 in medical bills. I still had an external fixture in my leg and was unable to work, so in 1995, at the age of 22, I had to file Bankruptcy. I have undergone several operations since and I am now doing well. I have learned a lot over the past 7 or 8 years and I take responsibility for my actions. I feel like I have more than paid my dues since these mistakes. I am asking you to please review my case and consider upgrading my discharge to Honorable.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS):

2. “Based on the contentions of the Petitioner, as well as an overview of the available records, it is requested the Board complies with the petitioner’s request that his discharge be upgraded. It is very important that the Board consider all contributory factors surrounding this case (see attached statements), coupled with the impetuosity of his youth, and in that respect, we humbly request, any and all reasonable doubt that has occurred be resolved in favor of the petitioner and corrective action be taken to upgrade his discharge. These issues do not supercede any previous issues.”



 Documentation
In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE WAS AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copies of DD Form 214 (3)
Letter from Applicant (2 pages)
Letter from Applicant
Copies of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     920824 - 920927  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920928               Date of Discharge: 950627

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.80 (1)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NAVY”E”, NDSM, SASM (w/b*), SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 165

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940523:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940523:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (4 Specifications), Unauthorized absences, Spec 1: From 0700-1648, 940407; Spec 2: From 0700-1300, 940413; Spec 3: From 0715, 940501 to 0620, 940502; Spec 4: From 0700-0750, 940504.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
940712:  AWOL from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).

940719:  Missed ship movement.

940812:  Declared a deserter.

941102:  Missed ship movement.

 950208:  Report of Return of Deserter. Taken to civilian hospital in Roanoke, VA on 941203 due to car wreck. Returned to military control 941222 (1530) at NAVMEDCEN Portsmouth, VA. Retained for disciplinary action.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950627 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 and 2. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by one non-judicial punishment, an extended period of unauthorized absence and missing ship’s movement that resulted in his request for separation under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his 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. 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. Relief denied.

 The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his 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 he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days, upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial].

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500112

    Original file (ND0500112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Now currently disabled can’t support my family unless discharge is upgraded to allow me to receive the proper benefits and help I deserve.”The Applicant’s representative submitted no issues. 950619: Report of Return of Deserter: Applicant apprehended by military authorities at 0930, 950614, (119 days) at Salisbury, North Carolina.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00058

    Original file (ND04-00058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________________ 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.The service record is incomplete. 951004: Applicant discharged There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00615

    Original file (ND04-00615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00615 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040303. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00088

    Original file (ND00-00088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000720. My discharge was improper because it was based on one incident that happened within 52 months of "honorable" service. The fact that the discharge was based on one incident in 52 months of service does not make the discharge improper, as the applicant suggests in issue 2.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00047

    Original file (ND99-00047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharge. The Board found the applicant had requested an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) in lieu of a Special Court Martial on 27 Feb 97 in order to avoid the possibility of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Further, applicant’s submitted issue contains text admitting having been UA by stating “…I wanted out, and off of that ship.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01513

    Original file (ND03-01513.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.Please inform this former member that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00960

    Original file (ND02-00960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00960 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020624, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030214. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00310

    Original file (ND00-00310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01052

    Original file (ND03-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT , ex-MS2, USN Docket No. ND03-01052 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030602. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00369

    Original file (ND00-00369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    911002: Applicant from unauthorized absence 1300, 2Oct91 (100 days/surrendered).911231: DD Form 214: Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.Discharge package missing from service record. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board...