Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00698
Original file (ND03-00698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00698

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030313. 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. “Naval officer typed up a report of grievance complaint urged from commanding officer of duty station, compiled with written instructions of general regulations to be followed-up in court proceedings given from executive officer of duty station; (USS GUAM LPH- 9) based in Norfolk VA. I never submitted my grievance complaint to any civil lawyer. I was informed I had a case according to this particular naval class petty officer specialist but I never took it upon myself to take action.
I feel my naval discharge was inequitable based on this particular incident. The commanding officer of my ship asked me through my chief officer for a choice to receive my under other than honorable discharge in which I previously accepted.
If not for this particular incident I possibly would have considered choosing to stay longer in the service on active duty. In closing and addition I will leave an attached copy of my legal grievance complaint. I request the (NDRB) will consider this grievance complaint within my military personnel file report. Hopefully this issue will present itself.

Sincerely,

J_ E_ W_ ( Applicant )”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Applicant’s statement
Chapter 11 General Regulations, Section 5. Rights and Restrictions
Poster – Navy procedures for the process of discrimination complaints/grievances for military personnel
Character reference, dated February 13, 2003
Character reference, dated February 18, 2003
Character reference, dated October 3, 1996
Character reference, dated January 27, 1996
Character reference, dated March 4, 2003
Character reference, dated March 2, 2003
Character reference, dated February 28, 2003
Standard Form 180
Leave and Earning Statement for 1-31 May 1991
Leave and Earning Statement for 1-31 December 1992

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     901204 - 901225  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 901226               Date of Discharge: 930713

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 18
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 36

 Highest Rate: MMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.53 (3)    Behavior: 3.13 (3)                OTA: 3.27

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

920430:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespectful in language toward superior Petty Officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully communicate a threat.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 1 month, restriction for 10 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
930304:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order on 930222.
         Award: Forfeiture of $500.55 per month for 1 month, reduction to MMFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
930304:  Retention Warning from USS GUAM: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey an order of a chief petty officer.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930604:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0700-1400, 930517, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship’s movement, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $407.40 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to MMFR. No indication of appeal in the record.
930609:  USS GUAM (LPH 9) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment.

930609:  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.
930616:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense.

930701:  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 19930713 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. T he Board disagrees with the Applicant's contention that the discharge was inequitable. After reviewing the Applicant's entire service record, as well as the documents submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as other than honorable was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. The Applicant’s service record was marred by award of three non-judicial punishments for wrongfully communicating a threat, failure to obey a lawful order, missing ship’s movement and dereliction of duty. An upgrade of the Applicant's discharge to an honorable characterization is not warranted. Relief denied.

The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600336

    Original file (ND0600336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00336 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051221. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01118

    Original file (ND01-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My father took ill after my enlistment. The record shows the applicant was found guilty at NJP for violations of the UCMJ on three separate occasions and he was properly counseled concerning further misconduct. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00086

    Original file (ND00-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It does not, however, change anything about the fact that the applicant had 4 NJPs, 2 retention warnings, was declared a deserter and was discharged from the Navy in absentia. The characterization is based on his time while in the service, which was served under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00958

    Original file (ND00-00958.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, you are being processed for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your Commanding Officer's Nonjudicial of 15 Apr 91, violating of the UCMJ, Article 91, disrespect to a Chief Petty Officer (2 Specifications).920622: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00656

    Original file (ND02-00656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00656 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Upon reading this, for whoever it may concern, please understand I was young and made very bad decisions please consider my upgrade, because if...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00238

    Original file (ND04-00238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MRFN, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00901

    Original file (ND02-00901.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter of Characterization from Pastor J_ D. P_, JR dated November 28, 2001 Letter of Characterization from J_ D. P_, Jr, 2 ND Lt Chaplain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00409

    Original file (ND04-00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.921022: USS IWO JIMA (LPH 2) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00336

    Original file (ND00-00336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00336 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000118, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge of Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, it is found that (applicant) requests a change of discharge from Other Than Honorable to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00495

    Original file (ND02-00495.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 (C and D).The Applicant presented no issues, however, he did request an upgrade of his discharge to general (under honorable conditions.) The Applicant The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented in the service record.