Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00520
Original file (ND03-00520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00520

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 personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Groton, Connecticut. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was inequitable because of my work performance and my personal appearance and my job knowledge. I was a qualified plane captain at VAW-120 at NAS Norfolk, VA off AC2 the personnel in the line division, I was the most enthusiastic about my position. I was usually one of the 1 st PC’s on the airfield, and 1 of the last PC’s to leave the airfield. I was dedicated to my work. Aviation, was and still is, my passion. I was a hard working individual and absolutely loved my job. Unfortunately, I made a few mistakes. I was young and somewhat immature now; I am older and wiser. I think more before I act, I am now married going on 6 years now. I also have a child who is about to turn 4 years old in May, 2003, I respectfully request that my discharge be changed to “honorable”. This will allow me to receive my Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits, which were taken from me due to the type of discharge I received. I wish to attend flight school so that I can earn the 4 licenses that are required for myself to pursue my dream of becoming an airline pilot. Becoming an airline pilot will not only fulfill my dream, but it will also allow me to provide better for my family financially. I feel that even though I made some mistakes, in my time of enlistment, I should be allowed a second chance. Every body deserves a second chance. I am truly regretful of the mistakes that I made. I hope that at the time of deliberation, the members of the board will be convinced that I am not only older, but also more mature and that I do indeed deserve a chance to pursue my career dream, and therefore turn my life around and provide better for my family.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character reference, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930625 - 940619  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940620               Date of Discharge: 970530

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 11         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 46

 Highest Rate: ADAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                           Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 54

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

951222:  NJP. No further information found in service record.
         Award: No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record.]
950818:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0645, 950818.

950916:  Applicant declared a deserter.

 951012:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1000, 951012 (54 days/apprehended).
960306:  Vacate suspended reduction awarded at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 951222 due to continued misconduct. [Extracted from Enlisted Performance Record.]
960913:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Damage military property of the United States. No further information found in service record.
         Award: No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from Administrative Remarks, NAVPERS 1070/613.]
961017:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You went to Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment on 960913, for the violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 108, military property of the United States - damage.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
         
961105:  NJP: No further information found in service record.
         Award: No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604.]
970530:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970530 under other than 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: 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 youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. His service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on three separate occasions. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. 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 considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

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. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief denied.

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 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01427

    Original file (ND03-01427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B), and after a thorough review of available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01187

    Original file (ND04-01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01187 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040719. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00500

    Original file (ND00-00500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00500 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I just wanted to be able to pursue my dream of becoming a police officer and to help society in helping keep law and order and peace in our country. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01271

    Original file (ND03-01271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149, dated February 16, 2001 Letter of Commendation for December 13-18 1996 Letter of appreciation, dated February 6, 1998 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00430

    Original file (ND04-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RPSN, USN Docket No. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398

    Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). ]990517: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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 improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00311

    Original file (ND02-00311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Hello Members of The Board,My name is (Applicant), I want to re-enter the Navy that is the reason that I need my discharge changed. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 U. S. Navy Seabee Rates PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 991027 - 991114 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01225

    Original file (ND02-01225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01225 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to AR. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01197

    Original file (ND02-01197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01197 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020814, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In 1997, I was discharged from the Navy with General (Under Honorable Conditions), due to misconduct! Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that...