Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00563
Original file (ND03-00563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMEAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00563

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030213. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. I feel that my discharge was inequitable because it pertains to a single instance of alleged insubordination toward a Naval Officer. I had missed a physical readiness test (PRT) because of personal reasons. I approached the Officer in charge of the PRT, but he was unavailable during the two days following the scheduled test. On the third day, Lt R___, my Division Officer, came to confront me about why I had missed the PRT. The resulting conversation was misrepresented that I had supposedly sworn at LT R__. I was directed to a Captain’s Mass, where I was reduced in rank, given 45 days of extra duty, 45 days of restriction to base, and one month’s forfeiture of pay. On the third day of my time of restriction to base, I was notified that I was scheduled for a separation physical. To my surprise, my unit had initiated the discharge process. I had earlier requested a transfer out of the unit a couple of months prior the incident because I felt that the unit politics were against the junior enlistment sailors. This request has been denied.

I had no criminal or any sort of illegal activity background before, during, or after my service other than couple of speeding tickets. The discharge was a big disappointment to me, because I was planning on making the Navy a career for me. I feel that I was really good at what I was doing, and I wanted to continue to pursue the many opportunities available in the Navy. I have since started to go to school, but have not been able to use my GI Bill because of the General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge. It is for this reason that I request that my discharge be upgraded to Honorable. Your favorable consideration to this request is greatly appreciated.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900829 - 910304  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910305               Date of Discharge: 940802

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 04 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: AMEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.45 (4)    Behavior: 3.40 (4)                OTA: 3.55

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920326:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure to maintain adequate room inspection standards), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
920407:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order issued by the Executive Officer, Fighter Squadron FORTY-ONE, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA, on or about 920319, to keep his barracks room inspection ready, did, at Barracks 431, Room 204E, fail to obey the same by failing his room inspection.
         Award: Forfeiture of $1/2 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction to NAS Oceana for 60 days (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 60 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

940512:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer, LT M__ R. R___, in the Fighter Squadron FORTY-ONE AME shop, located at Hangar 200, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA, on or about 920503, by saying to him” I had fucking problems and didn’t get back in time” and; “I have fucking problems so I got drunk that night and didn’t get up in the morning,” or words to that effect; while he, the said Lieutenant R_, was talking to him; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order issued by Executive Officer, Fighter Squadron FORTY-ONE, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA, to participate in the semi-annual command PRT, fail to obey the same by not participating in the command PRT, on or about 1600, 940428, and 0715, 940429.
         Award: Forfeiture of $467.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
940601:  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 on 940512 for disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer and failure to obey a lawful order.
940608:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
940706:  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 by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge general under honorable conditions.

940708:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment on 940512 for disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer and failure to obey a lawful order.

940801:  BUPERS 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 19940802 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: In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable . A characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions. The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. Additionally, t he Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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 Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant does not 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, 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 | ND99-00559

    Original file (ND99-00559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    940630: Counseling concerning personal behavior and responsibilities (failed to attend remedial physical conditioning program, as directed), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.940805: Counseling concerning responsibilities (failed seabag re-inspection - numerous items missing or couldn't find them due to clothes piled up at bottom of locker), notified of corrective actions and assistance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00071

    Original file (ND00-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850830 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500198

    Original file (ND0500198.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. Upon review of the Applicant’s statements, documentation provided and service record, the Board did not discern that the Applicant’s chain of command treated him in such a manner that would refute the presumption that he was properly and equitably discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00505

    Original file (ND01-00505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Seventy-Five]: Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three incidents resulting in Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishments for seven separate violations of the UCMJ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 860412: Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Seventy-Five]: Advised of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00774

    Original file (ND01-00774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00774 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010517, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Although I have been discharged from the Navy, the Navy is still inside me. I, (applicant), respectfully request that a discharge review board make the necessary changes and upgrade my discharge to Honorable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501465

    Original file (ND0501465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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) 20000511 – 20001102 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00355

    Original file (ND00-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If I had property that was stolen and knew the items were stolen, I could not justly be held guilty of the other charges. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910326 - 910521 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910522 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501136

    Original file (ND0501136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.930615: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense and commission of a pattern of misconduct.930621: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an administrative discharge board, to be represented at administrative discharge board, to submit...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00517

    Original file (ND99-00517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 48 Highest Rate: ET3 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.60 (3) Behavior: 3.62 (5) OTA : 3.65 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR Days of Unauthorized Absence: 30 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00722

    Original file (ND00-00722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 881004 - 920219 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880713 - 881003 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920220 Date of Discharge: 961010 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 07 12 Inactive: None 960703: Vacate...