Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00753
Original file (ND03-00753.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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



ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00753

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030326. The Applicant requests the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Discharge Review Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant designated a civilian as the representative on the DD Form 293, but later advised the Board, the civilian would not be his representative.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040316. 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 discerned by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and the narrative reason for the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 A personal appearance hearing discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on YYYYMMDD. 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 received 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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

“1. Reenlistment
2. Change RE code
3. Post-service”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant dated March 17, 2002
Virginia Courts Case Information (3 pages)
Red Cross Certificate of Appreciation
Certificate of Course Completion
Security Guard Training Certificate
Certificate of Incorporation
High School Transcripts (5 pages)
Chesapeake Business License (2 pages)
Birth Certificate
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs
Letter from NCIS, dated July 8, 2003
Letter from NCIS
Letter from NCIS, dated Aug 12, 2003
Memorandum from Inspector General, Defense Security Service, dated Sep 23, 2003
Response to Privacy Act request
Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs
Letter from U.S. Dept of Justice, (4 pages)
Letter from Defense Security Service, (2 pages)
Letter from Office of Personnel Management, dated December 18, 2003
Letter from Naval Air Station Oceana Commanding Officer, dated Dec 19, 2003
Uncertified Certificate of Preferred Stock
Application for certificate of authority (15 pages)
Letter from Education Direct, dated Nov 4, 2003
Packing Slip (2 pages)
Letter from Federal Trade Commission, dated July 16, 2003 (3 pages)
Education Direct transcript and test (11 pages)
         

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900416 - 900604  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900605               Date of Discharge: 930519

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 15
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 4 (7 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (1)    Behavior: 3.40 (2)                OTA: 3.45

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930126:  Applicant declared a deserter on 930126 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0545, 930126 from USS JOHN RODGERS.

930203:  Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 930127 (1130) at PSD ROOSEVELT ROADS PR. Returned to military control 930127 (1130). Transferred to COMDESRON FOUR and further transferred to TPU CHASN SC pending transportation arrangement by NAVPTO CHASN SC for return to parent command under technical arrest orders.

930319:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         UA 930126-930127 (29:45hrs/S); violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship’s movement on 930126.
         Finding: to Charge I, guilty.
         Sentence: CHL for 30 days, reduced to E-1.
         CA action 930326: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
930326:  Applicant notified of consideration for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
930330:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
930402:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “SR D__ (Applicant) was convicted at Summary Court Martial for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) and UCMJ Article 87 (Missing Ship’s Movement). His irresponsible actions create a burden on his shipmates and represent a threat to good order and discipline. He has demonstrated no further potential for further service. I most strongly recommend separation with characterization as OTH.”

930409:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
930416:  Refused treatment in a VA hospital.

960709:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND96-00648 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930519 under other than 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 and 2: 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.

Issue 3: 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, an alcohol-free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted. The Board commends the Applicant’s efforts at continuing his education and starting his own business. However, the Board determined that the Applicant’s post-service accomplishments did not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief denied.

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 – 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00957

    Original file (ND00-00957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) As evidenced by his supporting documentation, this former member further opines that his post service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board’s clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. Regarding the applicant’s request for a reason for discharge change, the Board found the reason assigned, Misconduct- Commission of a Serious Offense, most accurately describes the reason for discharge. PART IV...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01131

    Original file (ND04-01131.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041103. 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 received by the NDRB.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00677

    Original file (ND02-00677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00677 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020415, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. For this reason it is strongly recommended that the patient (Applicant) be separated from the United States Navy in accordance with the Navy Military Personnel Manual, Article 3620200, separation for convenience of the government. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00933

    Original file (ND02-00933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. No indication of appeal in the record.910828: 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 CO's NJP awarded on 910828, for 37 days unauthorized absence and wrongful appropriation of government property...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01002

    Original file (ND01-01002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01002 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010731, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 930316: 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 recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00752

    Original file (ND03-00752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00752 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030328. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00266

    Original file (ND01-00266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ATAN, USN Docket No. 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).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board has no obligation to change the applicant's discharge in order to allow him to go back to school. There is no requirement or law that grants...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00291

    Original file (ND02-00291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00291 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Despite the applicant’s years of honorable service, awards and high performance and behavior average markings, the Board found that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged for misconduct. Relief is therefore denied.The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00909

    Original file (ND01-00909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Four pages from applicant's service record Copy of employee evaluation dated December 9, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900430 - 901021 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 901022...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00281

    Original file (ND03-00281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ), advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.921118: Vacate suspended reduction to CTASA awarded at CO’s NJP dated 920925 due to continued misconduct.921118: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): 1 Failure to obey lawful order by continuing to make personal long-distance phone calls on United States Government phones, after being...