Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00525
Original file (ND03-00525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-STG3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00525

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030211. 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. “First of all this was an agreed upon discharge. I agreed to be discharged with a general/under honorable conditions based on being told that it would become an honorable discharge in 6 months from release as long as I didn’t commit any crimes in the civilian world in that time. I was told that “under honorable conditions” meant I was entitled to every thing “under honorable conditions”. Now I finally have the time to pursue furthering my education with the G.I. Bill that I paid for and now I am being told that I am not eligible to receive the benefits from the G.I. Bill that I paid for. Apparently my “under honorable conditions” are not so, but more importantly my discharge has not been changed yet. I am hoping that they just neglected to tell me that I had to send one of these (DD Form 293) in to have it changed and hopefully it can all be resolved right now. I specifically asked about the GI Bill because I knew I fully indeed of using it and would not have accepted the discharge otherwise.

I also was not told that my “narrative reason for separation” would be called “misconduct” or I once again would not have agreed to the discharge.

I beset you to consider what I have told to and make the necessary changes (especially the discharge) because I can’t afford to pay for college right now but the $1,200 that I paid into the bill would come in handy Thank you; J_ J_ W_”

 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, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930305 - 940103  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940104               Date of Discharge: 970618

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 15
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: STG3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 3.40 (2)                OTA: 3.50

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 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 :

940105:  You are being retained in the Naval service, despite your defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as evidenced by your failure to disclose your pre-service civil/drug involvement: Speeding 7/93 Troy, OH pd $25.00 plus court cost. However, any further deficiencies in performance or conduct may result in processing for administrative separation.

940708:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specs): Signed an official record on 940615, to wit: night study log, indicating he was present for night study at 1800, 940615, (2) Make a false statement on 940616 to a chief petty officer, to wit: all the record times in the night study log are correct concerning the actual study hours he put in.
         Award: Oral admonition, correctional custody for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970509:  Applicant diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with borderline and narcissistic traits, severe, as manifested by unstable and intense personal relationships, impulsivity, self-mutilation, and a sense of entitlement. The psychiatrist recommended separation based on a personality disorder of such severity as to render the Applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service. Applicant was considered self-destructive and a continuing risk of harm to self or others.

970513:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.
970513:  Applicant advised of his 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.
970515:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.

970604:  Commander, Training Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970618 with a characterization of general (under 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: The Applicant states that he was told that after six months he could have his discharge upgraded. There is no law or regulation that authorizes a discharge to be automatically upgraded after six months. A former service member has 15 years, from the date of discharge, to petition the board for consideration of an upgrade. The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational benefits as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. Furthermore, the Applicant was properly notified he was being discharged for a personality disorder and misconduct. 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.

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501307

    Original file (ND0501307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After serving my restriction time I was scheduled for a medical discharge (Honorable) yet I was given a discharge of other than Honorable. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00132

    Original file (ND02-00132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerly Yours.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 the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the FSM of a change of the narrative reason for separation of MISCONDUCT. On his personal statement the FSM notes restitution was made on the "bad check" as directed by his C.O. Restitution was made by the FSM in a very timely fashion, his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00533

    Original file (ND04-00533.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00533 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00877

    Original file (ND02-00877.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. My command told me there was no way that I could be reassigned. 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 Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00174

    Original file (ND99-00174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00174 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The board voted unanimously to change the reason for discharge to reflect personality disorder.In the applicant’s issue, the Board found no basis for relief. The discharge was equitable and correctly characterizes the applicant’s service and separation based upon a personality disorder.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00437

    Original file (ND04-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00098

    Original file (ND99-00098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971030 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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 desires to upgrade his discharge in order to obtain Montgomery GI Bill...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00627

    Original file (ND99-00627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Award: Oral Reprimand.980128: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980330 general under honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01101

    Original file (ND02-01101.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01101 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020729, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. To whom it may concern:Applicant) and I am writing this letter because I feel that my discharge of General Under Honorable Conditions should be upgraded to a fully Honorable discharge thereby allowing me to receive all college benefits and the gratitude I deserve for serving my country for five and a half years. MM3...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00348

    Original file (ND99-00348.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only reason why I did enlist in the U.S. NAVY is to receive my education benefits. No indication of appeal in the record.970111: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.970111: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to...