Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00912
Original file (ND03-00912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DT3, USN
Docket No. ND03-00912

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.

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

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant
Copies of Son’s Report Card (2 pages)
Copy of Student Referral dated March 2, 2000
Copy of Temporary Guardianship Document
Police Record Request
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Copy of Discharge Authorization
Copy of Certificate of Frocking
Copy of Letter of Appreciation
Copy of Certificate of Completion (Personal Control Skills for Prevention of Alcohol and other Drug Abuse, other high risk behavior, and Promotional of Individual Readiness) dated October 25, 1996
Copy of Good Conduct Award
Copy of Letter of Authorization to assume Petty Officer Third Class
Copy of Letter of Appreciation dated March 1, 1996
Copy of Sailor of the Year Nomination Letter dated March 11, 1997
Copy of Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal Citation
Copy of Letter of Appreciation dated April 3, 1995
Copies of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (2)


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR(DEP)               930510 - 940410  COG
         Active: USN                        940411 - 990102  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990729               Date of Discharge: 010119

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 21
         Inactive: 00 00 00

 Age at Entry: 32                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: DT3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 3.00 (1)                OTA: 3.71

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NAM, GCM, MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 166

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). [Note BUPERSINST 1900.8 list the authority as 3630600 instead of 3630605]

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990729:  Reenlisted at MEPS New Orleans, LA for 4 years with a 12 months extension.

000705:  UA from 000705 until 001218 (166days) [Dates extracted from DD Form 214].

010109:  Chief of Naval Education and Training authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

Discharge package is incomplete.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010119 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to absent without leave - 30 days or more (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).

 Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While she may feel that her family problems were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating she was unsuitable for further service. Her service record is marred by a period of unauthorized absence in excess of thirty days. 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 30, effective
30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00861

    Original file (ND00-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000705, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Another mitigating circumstance at the time of my discharge was the indication by the legal officer involved that there would not be a material difference in perception between an honorable discharge and a general discharge under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00293

    Original file (ND02-00293.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00293 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (Equity Issue) This former member proffers that family illness contributed to and sufficiently extenuated his misconduct of record to warrant upgrade of his characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions).2. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00658

    Original file (ND01-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00658 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Entry Level Separation or Uncharacterized. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The records reflect the FSM served in the United States Navy from June 24, 1999 to July 5, 2000, with a narrative reason for separation as Misconduct - Serious Military Offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00912

    Original file (ND04-00912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00912 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040511. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00040

    Original file (ND03-00040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 990405 to 990815 (130 days/apprehended). 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01335

    Original file (ND03-01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00138

    Original file (ND02-00138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00138 Applicant’s Request This application for discharge review, received 011022, requested that the characterization of service awarded to the Applicant upon his discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. In submitting DD Form 293 Review of Discharge, I am requesting the board update my discharge to Honorable and change my reentry code to allow me to reenlist and continue serving my country.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00792

    Original file (ND01-00792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would first like to say to the Discharge Review Board that I appreciate your time in hearing my case. 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 requested the Board change the discharge so he may receive veteran’s benefits. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00196

    Original file (ND04-00196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, and that all hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region. No indication of appeal in the...