Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00663
Original file (ND03-00663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMSAN, USNR (TAR)
Docket No. ND03-00663

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030307. 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. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040205. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

 Issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion):

“1. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of the application.”
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: None
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 881028               Date of Discharge: 920722

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 00
         Inactive: 00 02 24

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 10 GED           AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: AMSAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.30 (6)    Behavior: 2.96 (6)                OTA: 3.40

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Fail to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on 900313, to wit: Line Division, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Fail to obey lawful order on 900308, to wit: to attend FOD Walkdown.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900510:  Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Composite Twelve]: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence on 900313 for which you were awarded Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishment on 900506.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900906:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Fail to obey a lawful order on 900822, to wit: to return to the duty office, violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Willfully damage military property of the United States of a value of $93.00.
         Award: Correctional custody for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
UNDATED:         Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Composite Twelve]: Advised of deficiency (Disobeying a lawful order from a senior petty officer and damage to US Government property.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
920624:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 82: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer: treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward on 920320
         Award: Extra duty for 45 days, reduction to AMSAA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
920707:  Fighter Squadron Composite Twelve notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three nonjudicial punishments.
920707:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
920721:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920722 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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: 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. E vidence 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 submitted any documentation to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief is therefore 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, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00006

    Original file (ND02-00006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 92 Highest Rate: AQAA Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.50 (2) Behavior: 3.30 (2) OTA: 3.30 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00054

    Original file (ND02-00054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 920304: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00553

    Original file (ND03-00553.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00553 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20030212, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant is not eligible for further review by the Naval Discharge Review Board. Decision A documentary review discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031017.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01008

    Original file (ND03-01008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01008 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant’s conduct and proficiency markings, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his misconduct, and fall below that required for an honorable characterization of service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01245

    Original file (ND02-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020906, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.960603: Strike Fighter Squadron 192 notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three nonjudicial punishments held on 931124, 940825, and 960602 and by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00947

    Original file (ND00-00947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00947 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Violation of UCMJ, Article 123A (4 specifications): Specification 1: Presented a check for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00215

    Original file (ND01-00215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you, 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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940127 - 940611 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940612 Date of Discharge: 961217 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 06 06 Inactive: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00213

    Original file (ND02-00213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 961119 Date of Discharge: 001229 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 01 11 Inactive: None No indication of appeal.001215: Vacate suspended reduction to AMSAN awarded at CO's NJP dated 11 Dec 00 due to continued misconduct.001220: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01022

    Original file (ND00-01022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 901015: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from USS KITTY HAWK, from 0700-0830, 901007, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duty on or about 901007 by failing to clean work center space in a timely manner. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...