Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00803
Original file (ND03-00803.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00803

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030403. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 20040408. 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 think that my discharge should be upgraded due to me serving 3 years and 9 months, which is close to the full 4 year term I was committed to.”

 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)     920923 - 921020  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 921021               Date of Discharge: 960625

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 10 GED           AFQT: 00

 Highest Rate: EN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.15 (4)    Behavior: 2.85 (4)                OTA: 3.17

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

 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 :

940708:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0715, 940708.

940709:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 1800, 940709 (1 day/surrendered).

 940715:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from unit on 940708.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 8 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
960218:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent from unit on 951225-951226.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to ENFN. No indication of appeal in the record.
960220:  Retention Warning from USS CARL VINSON (CVN-70: Advised of deficiency (Absence from unit. As evidenced by your commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment imposed on 960218.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

960325:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): (1) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 1100, 960219, to wit: restricted man’s muster, (2) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 0630, 960223, to wit: restricted man’s muster, (3) Fail to go to appointed place of duty on 0630, 960323, to wit: restricted man’ muster.
         Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
960507:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent himself from unit on 960404.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to ENFA. No indication of appeal in the record.
960510:  USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70) 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 his 4 nonjudicial punishments imposed on 940715, 960218, 960325 and 960507 during his current enlistment.
960510:  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.
960520:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

960624:  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 19960625 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).

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the characterization of discharge if such a change is warranted. The summary of service clearly documents the pattern of misconduct for which the applicant was discharged. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four separate occasions thus substantiating the misconduct . No other character of separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the character of separation would be inappropriate. 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. 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 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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00155

    Original file (ND01-00155.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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00279

    Original file (ND04-00279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Application for VA Education Benefits (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890906 - 890916 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890917 Date of Discharge: 910924 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 00 08 Inactive: None Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501401

    Original file (ND0501401.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:Reference Letter from C_ B_(Applicant’s mother) dtd August 9, 2005 Reference Letter from Mr E_ P_, dtd January 17, 2005 Character Reference Letter from E_ B_ M_, dtd December 13, 2004 Letter from Applicant dtd...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00194

    Original file (ND99-00194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.831019: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted Men's Muster 7 times between 831003 through 831012. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 840521 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A). You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00117

    Original file (ND99-00117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910115: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0715-1323, 90Dec03, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Possess two ID cards on 90Sep23, violation of UCMJ, Article 123: Falsely sign an official document on 90Sep23, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk on duty on 90Dec18. 910722: USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70) 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00073

    Original file (ND00-00073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00073 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991019, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.860107: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00128

    Original file (ND00-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900412: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions and further recommended that the discharge not be suspended. Accordingly, I concur with the Board's recommendation that ABFAA (Applicant) be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00158

    Original file (ND04-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends that his discharge was unfair and that he was a “model soldier.” When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable or under honorable conditons. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01232

    Original file (ND99-01232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000713. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500978

    Original file (ND0500978.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Specification: In that Yeoman Seaman A_ A_, U.S. Navy, Strike Fighter Squadron 147, having knowledge of lawful order issued by Commander B_ I_, Commanding Officer, that liberty for E-3 and below expired at 2400 on the pier in Fremantle, an order which it was his duty to obey, did, on or about 30 April 2002 fail to obey the same by being in Perth after 2400.Award: Forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 2 months (suspended for six months), reduction to...