Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01050
Original file (ND03-01050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

,ex-HA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01050

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030530. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 20040423. 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

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 “Dear Sir or Madam:

I was discharged from active duty in the U.S. Navy on or about 16 Aug 1995 from VFA-87 with a RE-4 reenlistment code. At my point of separation, I had the rank of E-2 as a Hospital Corpsman. Prior to that, I was an E-4. The particulars of my 2 Captain’s Mast are as follows: First was 2 counts of dereliction of duty. The first count of that was not having my dental records on the shelves in the Dental Department when my CMC went down to get an exam. In my defense, I have to stat that we were aboard ship for our 95 Med cruise aboard the U.S. S. Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) for less than a week, and the Dental Department had scheduled times and dates for those of us in squadrons to come to file our records, and my time had not yet arrived. The Second count of Dereliction of duty was for not reporting to my CMC Squadron personnel who were seen in medial that day. If I remember correctly, Navmed instructions state that Personnel are not REQUIRED to relay that information, but it can be done as a courtesy to the CMC. And with my change to night shift, it is sometimes extremely hard to find him onboard. For that I was given reduction of Rate and ½ pay for 2 months. My second trip to Captains mast was for failure to appear in work station at time ordered and falsifying an official document. For that I was sent to the C.O. of the ship. The count of failure to appear was dismissed by the Captain, as it was unclear if someone was or was not sent to wake me, as the meeting was called by Lt. M_ H_ at 11:00 that day to give out information that the lead Squadron Corpsman had already provided to us. The second count, the count of falsifying an official document, as was noted during my Captains mast, was for one wrong number on a squadron members 5 year physical. I had transcribed an eye exam given on shore less than 2 months earlier, due to the squadron member having just gotten off a 10 hour shift on the flight deck, as is, or was, permissible by NavMed instructions. Due to the Doctors writing, I transcribed a 20/70 eyesight in one eye as 20/20. The mistake was caught by the doctor and corrected, as is the reason we have that system of checks and balances and why everything is reviewed. At that mast I received a reduction of rate and 45 days restriction.

I feel my discharge from the Navy to be unjust in the particulars that my discharge was never ordered at either of my Masts. My squadron decided to separate me. Prior to my separation and even my masts, I was harassed by numerous Squadron personnel, Officer and Enlisted alike, on my religious beliefs. I was accused of being a Satanist, and as many times as I set those rumors to rest, a new one seemed to start. I was probably not the best Corpsman that squadron has had, nor was I the worst. I always passed inspection on my duties, on my records, more often than not with high marks. I was always equipped to deal with minor emergencies in the barracks and at the Squadron command. I always had the squadron medially prepared for cruise and detachments. I often smoothed the way between the different departments within the medical department, making appointments for people from the squadron who asked me to do so. After my second Mast, I was removed from my work station in Medical where I worked the ACC at night with an Independent Duty Corpsman for emergencies that could not wait for sick call, and re-assigned to Damage Control, where I spent 2 1/2 months waiting for my discharge to come through. It took over a month to send out the paperwork, and I saw 1 other from my squadron, and 3 others from other squadrons and ships crew leave before me.
I realize that is has been more than 3 years since this has occurred, but I hope that the board will consider my application for the change of my discharge status. I am applying for this, first, because of recent activities in the world, I have often considered re-enlistment, but I can not as of yet, due to my RE-4 code. Second, so I would finally have access to the records of the training I received during active duty, as they do apply to credit for college where I plan to peruse my medical career.
        

Sincerely
          (Applicant’s Signature)
 M_ A_ T_, Jr.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     910710 - 920617  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920618               Date of Discharge: 950804

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 17
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: HM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.15 (4)    Behavior: 3.36 (5)                OTA: 3.36

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NDSM, SASM(wb*), SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

950401:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

950417:  Punishment of reduction in rate to HN and forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months suspended at CO’s NJP of 950401 vacated this date due to continued misconduct.

950420:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ, Article 92, Dereliction of duty), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

950425:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on or about 950406.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 40 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

950428:  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 all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.
950430:  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 submit statements in own behalf either verbally or in writing and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
950509:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

950601:  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 19950804 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).

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. The Applicant contends that his discharge was unjust since it “was never ordered at either of my masts.” For the Applicant’s information, the decision to administratively separate a service member is made independently of the imposition of NJP per regulation. Accordingly relief on this basis is not warranted.

A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions thus substantiating the misconduct . The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant ’ s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

 Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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. 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 only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Furthermore, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to obtain any training records while on active duty which may benefit him in further education.

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. 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00697

    Original file (ND02-00697.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When I went back to my squadron, my commander told me that I was being discharge with a General discharge under honorable condition. Applicant did not object to the separation.940209: Commanding Officer, Attack Squadron 196, advised CNMPC of Applicant's discharge with general (under honorable conditions) by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 940322 with a characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01080

    Original file (ND02-01080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01080 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020723, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. October 1998, I left for Rota Spain without any ideas of how my life would change. Outside my military career, I put up with being stranded without a car, left without any money and verbally as well as physically abused.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00430

    Original file (ND00-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION This was unjust & unfair that only two people went to Captains Mast instead of everyone you bought a meter but didn't admit to paying for it I record was flawless until the USS FORRESTAL.” The NDRB considered this issue and found that it was one of three NJP’s the applicant was found guilty for in his enlistment. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I feel many other people were at fault, but only two people took the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00971

    Original file (ND04-00971.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00971 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040527. No indication of appeal in the record.980818: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.980818: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00586

    Original file (ND99-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only discussion I can ever remember my division officer having with me was how he would rip my earring out of my ear if he ever saw me wear it.- The professional counseling that was never scheduled was the result of the only man who tried to help me on this ship. I did not deserve to be denied the professional counseling that was offered to me and ordered by my Captain. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00309

    Original file (ND03-00309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00309 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00543

    Original file (ND04-00543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Within 3-days he realized that he was having the same problem as I had and changed the watch schedule so that he had a day watch and could get more sleep.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00699

    Original file (ND00-00699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION after this occurred I then got dressed and went to the quarter masters desk and asked them to call base security. The NDRB found this issue non decisional.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00883

    Original file (ND99-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00883 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Since the tickets were from separate cities, when the command called the courts to verify the date on the citation the wrong date was given to the command and I was once again accused of falsifying information.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00660

    Original file (ND01-00660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00660 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010810, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from...