Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551
Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ICFN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00551

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030212. 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 20040128. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1) My discharge is improper because it was based on isolated incidents in 44 months of service. After the incident there were no further problems. Discharge did not take place until more than 6 months after incident and after orders were received for new command. I did not go to Captain’s Mast until Mid-May, the incident occurred in August the previous year. Went about my duties and completely fulfilled them.

2) One day when I finish school, I would like to re-enlist in the Armed Forces.
I am now enrolled in College and pursuing a degree in Chemical Engineering.

3) I was under a lot of personal stress and attending anger management classes, during my tour. I also had some health related issues and deaths in my family.

4) I am not excusing my actions only trying to explain my actions. They were handled correctly by me but I have learned and grown from them.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character reference, dated June 3, 2002
Character reference, dated June 9, 2002
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930724 - 940711  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940712               Date of Discharge: 980624

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 11 13         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 74

 Highest Rate: IC3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF         *                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NER (2), SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 30

* No Marks Found

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

971010:  Applicant missed ship’s movement on 970921.

 980507:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0001, 970831 to 0020, 970930 (30 days/surrendered), violation of UCMJ Article 121: Wrongful appropriation on 9703, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Dishonorably failed to pay debt from 9701 to 9710 and from 9610 to 9612, violation of UCMJ, Article 123A (12 specs): Wrongful procurement of lawful currency between 9611 and 9707.
         Award: Forfeiture of $575 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to ICFN. No indication of appeal in the record.
980527:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980527:  Applicant advised of 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.
980530:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a type warranted by service record 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 19980624 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).

Issues 1-4: 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 she may feel that her personal problems 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 she was unsuitable for further service. Her service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for numerous offenses including unauthorized absence, missing ship’s movement and wrongful procurement of currency . Additionally, 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. However, 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 during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief is therefore 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 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | ND99-00450

    Original file (ND99-00450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24 & 28 - I put in for parenthood discharge and I had missed ship's movement due to this problem. I have directed that AN (applicant) be separated from the naval service with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980622 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00360

    Original file (ND01-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00360 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Copy of DD Form 214 Two pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00861

    Original file (ND00-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000705, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Another mitigating circumstance at the time of my discharge was the indication by the legal officer involved that there would not be a material difference in perception between an honorable discharge and a general discharge under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01205

    Original file (ND03-01205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 970109 - 970406 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970407 Date of Discharge: 990512 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 06 Inactive: None Award: Not found in service record....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01226

    Original file (ND03-01226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151

    Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00138

    Original file (ND03-00138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00521

    Original file (ND01-00521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00521 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 980608: Letter of Deficiency issued by Applicant's counsel.980610: Commanding officer directed the applicant's discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The applicant did not provide any documentation of her post-service.