Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00690
Original file (ND03-00690.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00690

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030314. 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 20040212. 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/PATTERN OF 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 believe the record to be unjust because at the time when my discharge took place I took responsibility for something I didn't take part in. There was gambling going on the ship and I was not present, I was on watch. However, the shipmates I was associated with were and because they were my friends my name was put in the situation. At that time I was young and didn't know the definition of a friend. Now I am much older, mature, and focused on my goals and taking care of my family other than friends.”

I ask the board to consider this application because I am 29 yrs old. More mature than before. I am also about to graduate from college. For the profession I am seeking in the government. I need my discharge to be upgraded.

 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)     931119 - 931121  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 931122               Date of Discharge: 941222

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 6

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940201:  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 involvement: (1) Probation violation, violation of probation, commit depredation against property of US/PV, 12/92 Miami, FL. Paid $1100 fine and probation for 6 months (dropped). (2) Burglary conveyance, 8/92, Miami, FL. Jail for 3 weeks and dropped. However, any further deficiencies in performance or conduct may result in processing for administrative separation.

940614:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): Absence from place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willful disobedience of superior officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Minor in consumption of alcohol.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. Forfeiture of $150.00 suspended for 4 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
UNDATED:         Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Failure to perform all required military duties (i.e. habitual tardiness and under age consumption).), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940622:  Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Minor in consumption and absence without leave.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940902:  Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO’s NJP dated 940614 due to continued misconduct.

 940902:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Absence from unit, violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Disobeying a superior commissioned officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 22 days. Forfeiture of $200.00 suspended for 4 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
940902:  Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Absence from unit and willful disobedience of Superior Commissioned Officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
941003:  Vacate suspended forfeiture awarded at CO’s NJP dated 940902 due to continued misconduct.

941003:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Failure to go to appointed place of duty, violation of UCMJ, Article 90 (3 specs): Willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful general regulation.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
941015:  USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36) 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 violation of UCMJ Article 134 (Minor in consumption of alcohol), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, three specifications), and Article 90 (Willful disobedience of a Superior Commissioned Officer) as determined by CO’s NJP on 14 Jun 94; violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 90 (Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer) as determined by CO’s NJP on 2 Sep 94; violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty, two specifications), Article 90 (Willful disobedience of a Superior Commissioned Officer, three specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful general regulation) as determined by CO’s NJP on 3 Oct 94; by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of UCMJ Article 90 (willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer) as determined by CO’s NJP on 2 Sep 94; violation of UCMJ Article 90 (Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, three specifications) and Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general regulation) as determined by CO’s NJP on 3 Oct 94; and for defective enlistment and induction due to fraudulent entry into naval service as determined by NAVPERS 1070/613, administrative remarks of 1 Feb 94 and by Chief of Naval Personnel letter dated 26 Aug 94.
941015:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
941015:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and defective enlistment due to fraudulent entry into naval service.

941103:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 19941222 under other than honorable conditions 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: 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 his immaturity was a contributing factor, it does 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 for numerous offenses. Additionally, t he 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.

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 – 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500960

    Original file (ND0500960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.941202: Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty) and 90 (Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01471

    Original file (ND03-01471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00789

    Original file (ND01-00789.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. No indication of appeal in the record.890812: [USS TRUXTON (CGN-35)] 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 your six Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishments and two page 13's dated 861203 and 890321 and misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00994

    Original file (ND99-00994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (D and E).The applicant’s representative submitted the following as issue 1: (EQUITY ISSUE) His violations of the UCMJ notwithstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service period is sufficient to warrant separation under honorable conditions. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s representative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00616

    Original file (ND01-00616.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.910112: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent without authority. 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 the applicant’s issue, the Board determined that the applicant demonstrated a definite pattern of misconduct by receiving 6 NJP’s in two years. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00965

    Original file (ND04-00965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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: Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01295

    Original file (ND02-01295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870917: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01178

    Original file (ND01-01178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.950511: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 11May95.950509: USS SAVANNAH (AOR 4) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense.950510: Applicant advised of his rights and having...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00029

    Original file (ND04-00029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. My decision to join the United States Navy was solely made as an attempt to prove something to my family. 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 | ND02-00417

    Original file (ND02-00417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SA, USN Docket No. ND02-00417 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.911209: Retention Warning from USS DETROIT (AOE 4): Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two Article 15, UCMJ nonjudicial punishments...