Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00817
Original file (ND03-00817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00817

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030411. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized. 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 20040303. 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 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. " I WAS AT ENTRY LEVEL STATUS AND SERVED LESS THAN 180 DAYS. THEREFORE, I FEEL I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN ENTRY LEVEL SEPERATION OR UNCHARTERIZED DISCHARGE.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of DD Form 215
Undated Letter of Recommendation from N--A. S--

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     000516 - 000613  COG
         Active: USN      NONE            

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000614               Date of Discharge: 001027

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 04 14 (Doesn't exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 50

 Highest Rate: FR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*        Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 39

* No Marks Available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).


 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000809:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3specs): Specs 1 Absence without leave on 06 July 00 until 19 July 00.
         Award: Forfeiture of $211 per month for seven days and 14 days restriction and extra duty. (spec 2 and 3 suspended for six months). No indication of appeal in the record.
000809:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence from Recruit Training Command on 06 July 2000 until 19 July 2000 and 20 July 2000 until 30 July 2000 and 5 August 2000 until 06 August 2000). Notified of corrective actions and assistance available. "The following are recommendations for corrective action. Do not absent yourself without authority, do no commit further misconduct, review current rules and regulations, and abide by Navy core values of Honor, Courage and Commitment. Assistance is available through your chain of command, Legal Officer, Command Master Chief, Chaplain, Recruit Evaluation Unit and DAPA."

001004:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 11 August 2000 until 19 August 2000.
         Award: Restriction & extra duty for 14 days. Forfeiture of pay.

 001004:  Applicant notified of Vacation of Suspended Punishment.

 001011:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by OIC's NJP of 09 Aug 00 and 04 Oct 00 and commission of serious offense as evidenced by OIC's NJP of 04 Oct 00.
001011:  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

001019:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

001020:  Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

001027:  Discharged with characterization of service as "Uncharacterized (Entry Level Separation).

001113:  DD 215 issued correcting characterization of service to "Under Honorable Other Than Honorable Conditions).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20001027 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. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions, unauthorized absences totaling 39 days, and an adverse counseling entry. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to 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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00934

    Original file (ND02-00934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Outstanding post-service conduct, 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 may be considered. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00447

    Original file (ND03-00447.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AMHAR, USN Docket No. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01164

    Original file (ND01-01164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. The Applicant did not provide any of these documents. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01164 (2)

    Original file (ND01-01164 (2).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. The Applicant did not provide any of these documents. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01125

    Original file (ND02-01125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990424 - 990527 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990528 Date of Discharge: 011105 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 05 08 Inactive: None 011028: Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500570

    Original file (ND0500570.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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01183

    Original file (ND02-01183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as submitted Prior to the documentary discharge review, the Applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 960710: Commenced 36 month of active duty under the Seaman Apprenticeship training program.970912: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Make a false official statement about a medical appointment to his LPO on 970714. No indication of appeal in the record.980707: Applicant notified of intended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00208

    Original file (ND03-00208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated November 10, 2002 Copy of DD Form 214 Enlisted Report and Counseling Record, dated September 25, 1997 Letter from Applicant to Naval Discharge Review Board, dated December 12, 2002 Letter from Applicant to Board of Naval Corrections, not dated. 980611: DD-214 lists dates of loss time due to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00240

    Original file (ND04-00240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged in absentia 20021205 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board does not automatically upgrade a discharge after six months.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00977

    Original file (ND01-00977.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (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 this application. 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 states: “(Equity Issue) This former member proffers that he regrets his misconduct of...