Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00970
Original file (ND03-00970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00970

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030514. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Explanation of My General Discharge from the United States Navy.

I entered the Navy on October 3, 1991. I was a recent graduate from high school. I went into the navy with great expectations, however certain circumstances shortened my duty. These circumstances were a result of disagreements that took place between my chief (Chief L__) and myself. I do not remember what the charges were exactly, and I do not place all of the blame on Chief L___. This happened over ten year ago. I was young and easily provoked by antagonistic authority. It had been an ongoing issue between him and I. I felt like I was being treated differently than the other sailors. I felt like he had a personal vendetta against me. The situation only got worse by me acting out immaturely and returning fire with fire. Today, I understand and have learned from the mistake that I’ve made. I was fresh out of high school and the military taught me a lot of lessons about life, hard work, and respecting authority. I received the general discharge because neither him nor I wanted to continue the negative relationship that had evolved. I praise GOD for the experience because it has helped me be the best correctional officer at La Arendale State Prison that I can be. I encounter several different kinds of people, personalities, and attitudes. I have learned to put my total focus on my job and ultimately be the best of the best at what I do. It is my hope and dream to further my career in law enforcement. I hope that my differences in the past do not effect my efforts here because I truly know now what it takes to be a man. I have a family now and I want the best for them-while also doing what I have to do and that’s working in law enforcement.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     910507 - 911002  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 911003               Date of Discharge: 930728

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 09 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 45

 Highest Rate: MMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.30 (2)    Behavior: 2.70 (2)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
911011:  Retention Warning from [RTC, NTC, Great Lakes, IL]: Advised of deficiency (Non swim qualified), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911120:  Retention Warning from [RTC, NTC, Great Lakes, IL]: Advised of deficiency (4 th Class Swimmer qualified.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930131:  Recommendations for retention and advancement to Petty Officer Third Class are withdrawn this date due to substandard performance.

 930721:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Failure to go to appointed place of duty, on 930616; Spec 2: Leaving appointed place of duty, on 930617, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order, on 930623.
         Award: Forfeiture of $456.00 pay per month for 2 month (suspend 1 month for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930728 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (A). In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 Issue 1. A characterization of service of general (under 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 one occasion, adverse counseling entries, and performance and conduct markings well below the minimum acceptable levels. 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. It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. 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 his discharge at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON 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 | ND02-00989

    Original file (ND02-00989.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Employment Reference Letter from SMI International dated June 18, 2002 Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950808 - 951204 COG Active: None. Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01166

    Original file (ND03-01166.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 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00040

    Original file (ND01-00040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to reenlistment eligible RE-1. This is a request to have the review board evaluate my service record. The Board found the applicant’s discharge accurately described his service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01410

    Original file (ND03-01410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I felt that the Navy had let me down I realized that it was wrong and I hated the Navy and their ways after that day I wanted out and I felt to just get out I would just go UA for a while and they would let me go. I swear to you she did push me and I can’t believe how they handled it and all I want to do is go back into time and do things different, but I can’t so I went a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00670

    Original file (ND00-00670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION For the applicant’s service to be characterized as Honorable he must have served over 180 days or have such meritorious service that would warrant an honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00745

    Original file (ND02-00745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My father, S_ F_ SR. was diagnosed with renal failure in 3/91 and soon after put on a kidney transplant donor list. 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 states he commenced his period of unauthorized absence to assist his father. Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00119

    Original file (ND04-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00119 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031027. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :020304: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 Specifications): Failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted muster.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00666

    Original file (ND04-00666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01129

    Original file (ND01-01129.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01129 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010829, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Much to my surprise, our new captain decided to retain me in the navy, obviously from a recommendation from our prior CO, and my chain of command. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Previous DD Form 214...