Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00901
Original file (ND03-00901.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AOAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00901

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. 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. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the Disabled American Veterans.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040401. 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. The letters of recommendation indicated that I have revised my living style and am a regular attending member of the St. Paul A.M.E. church.

2. Joining the Navy/Marines would further my personal character and enable me to assist young people in developing their goals for their life.

3. Given a second chance will enable me to continue my personal growth, contribute to the military service and the community as a whole.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (Disabled American Veterans):

 4. “Dear Chairperson:

After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable to Honorable Conditions.

The FSM served on active service from May 17, 2001 to November 23, 2001 at which time he was discharged due to Misconduct.

As the FSM has not submitted any documentation in support of his claim, we as the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

We ask for the Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision. These issues do not supersede any issues previously submitted by the Applicant.

Respectfully,”





Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Character reference, dated September 9, 2002
Character reference, dated September 13, 2002
Character reference, undated
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2 copies)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     010316 - 010516  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 010517               Date of Discharge: 011123

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 9                         AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: AOAA
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: None

* No Marks available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

011107:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): (1) Disrespectful in language and deportment toward AO2 D_ by saying to him when asked for his light/limited duty chit “I have it at the barracks, don’t worry about it, on 020924, (2) Disobey a lawful order from AOCS T_, to stand at attention and maintain military bearing on 010924, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Orders violation on 010924, fail to obey the same by wrongfully making racial slurs to wit: “fuck these niggers, I am not listening to what they say. ”
         Award: Forfeiture of $521 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
011107:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
011107:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
011113:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
011115:  Chief of Naval Education and Training directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20011123 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).

 Issues 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, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted. At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. Relief denied.
Issue 4: 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 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for disrespect, failure to obey a lawful order and making racial slurs. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00481

    Original file (ND02-00481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00481 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. We also respectfully request that the board consider each reasonable explanation submitted by the (FSM) who now wishes to correct the general character of his discharge to Honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00839

    Original file (ND01-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Force of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the appellant of an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable discharge to that of a General, Under Honorable Conditions. The applicant is reminded that his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00375

    Original file (ND00-00375.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 981103: Memorandum from Command Chaplain stating applicant made a public statement to him claiming he is bisexual.981116: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.981116: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00167

    Original file (ND00-00167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981031 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01098

    Original file (ND03-01098.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 on 19990517 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00431

    Original file (ND00-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990405 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00511

    Original file (ND00-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980504: Chief of Naval Personnel to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) recommending applicant's discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980619 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00779

    Original file (ND01-00779.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00779 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010516, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00111

    Original file (ND01-00111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.000614: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.000614: Applicant advised of her 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.000616: Commanding officer recommended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00275

    Original file (ND00-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. No further information found in service record PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980313 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of...