Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00911
Original file (ND03-00911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00911

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030428. 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 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Fire Rescue Volunteer Service Letters dated June 18, 1998 (2)
Certificate of Achievement (Nassau County Fire/Rescue Safety and Scene Size Up 4 Hour Lecture)
Reference Letters dated January 16, 2003 (2)
Reference Letters dated January 15, 2003 (2)
Reference Letters from Recruiter dated February 18, 2003 (2)
Letters from Applicant dated February 18, 2002 (2)
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Copy of Certificate of Appreciation dated February 26, 2000.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910614               Date of Discharge: 950118

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 00 30
         Inactive: 00 06 05

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 61

 Highest Rate: HA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.30 (2)    Behavior: 2.30 (2)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 3

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

911209:  Commenced 4 years of Active Duty.

 921105:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0900, 920925 until 0640, 920929 (3 days/S).
         Award: Correctional Custody Unit for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
941121:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 0645, 940405, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Commanding Officer’s Personnel Inspection; violation of UCMJ Article 92(4 specifications), Specification 1: On or about 1400, 940421, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to stand a proper watch, which it was his duty to do, Specification 2: On or about 0245, 940811, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to stand a proper watch, which it was his duty to do, Specification 3: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commander, Naval Base, Jacksonville, FL, to wit: CNAAJINST 3593.1 of August 1993, and order which it was his duty to obey, did at BEQ H-2034, Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, FL, on or about 1400, 940523, fail to obey the same by wrongfully being in possession of one pair of brass knuckles, Specification 4: Having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, FL, to wit: NAVHOSPJAXINST 11103.1B of April 1993, and order which it was his duty to obey, did at (BEQ H-2004), Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, FL, on or about 1400, 940523, fail to obey the same by wrongfully being in possession of 144 bottle rockets, 396 firecrackers, 1 smoke bomb, and 2 roman candles.
          Award: Forfeiture of $416.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
941128:  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 the findings at Commanding Officer’s NJP that you violated UCMJ Article 92 (2 specifications) disobeying a lawful order, which a punitive discharge would be authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial.
941130:  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 separation.
941209:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

941230:  BUPERS 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 19950118 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).

 The Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. 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) on two separate occasions. 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.

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.

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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00867

    Original file (ND03-00867.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00867 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, a documentary review was conducted, and the Applicant is not eligible for further review by this Board Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040728.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115 (1)

    Original file (ND01-01115 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. 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, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115

    Original file (ND01-01115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. 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, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00811

    Original file (ND01-00811.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00811 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01071

    Original file (ND00-01071.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’s issue states: “I feel my discharge was improper because, I was discharged for misconduct that I did not commit. While the applicant’s service record shows various decorations, his documented misconduct outweighed his otherwise creditable service. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00686

    Original file (ND02-00686.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020418, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. I strongly recommend that AR F_ (Applicant) be discharged immediately from the naval service under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.]

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00508

    Original file (ND02-00508.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 former service member’s service. The Board’s vote was 4 to 1 that the character of the discharge shall not change. The former service member was discharged on 910410 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00331

    Original file (ND02-00331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00331 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00709

    Original file (ND01-00709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 840717 - 841016 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 841017 Date of Discharge: 870414 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 05 28 Inactive: None After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00238

    Original file (ND01-00238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.920201: Civil Conviction for theft; stolen license tag, driving while license suspended, faulty equipment [Extracted from CO's message].920218: Civil Conviction for driving while license suspended, faulty equipment, violation of probation for leaving the scene of an accident [Extracted from CO's message]. At...