Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01112
Original file (ND03-01112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-CTTSN, USN
Docket No. ND03-01112

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030611. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 20040430. 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 discharge is improper because I served in the military for three years never once did I ever try to understand my rate. Every day I came to work and tried to commit my time on getting all of the assignments given to me done, but yes I can say that I wasn’t being very responsible by not getting to work on time or taking care of all my financial responsibilities instead I put my financial problems on my division I can say being responsible is all part of being a sailor in the Navy.”

 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)     990120 - 990217  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990218               Date of Discharge: 020718

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: CTTSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 2.00 (3)    Behavior: 2.00 (3)                OTA: 2 .55

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010412:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order on 010401, to wit: to go and do a urinalysis, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): (1) Incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor on 010331, (2) Underage drinking on 010331.
         Award: Correctional custody for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
010412:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure to obey other lawful order, incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor, and underage drinking.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

010920:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs): Failure to go to appointed place of duty on two occasions, to wit: General Quarters Drill, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order on 010916, to wit: to turn in his financial worksheet.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to CTTSA, removal of CT rating security clearance. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
011018:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0730-1025, 011013.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 10 days, reduction to CTTSA. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
020617:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs): No further details found in service record.
          Award: Forfeiture of $690 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 15 days, reduction to CTTSA.
020618:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
020618:  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 to support the basis for the separation.
020618:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

020703:  COMPHIBGRU THREE 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 20020718 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).

 Issue 1: In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. 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 four 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.

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 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 | ND02-01025

    Original file (ND02-01025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01025 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, 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, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01027

    Original file (ND02-01027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020715, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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) 990730 - 991004 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600353

    Original file (ND0600353.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00353 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060104. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.041013: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00622

    Original file (ND04-00622.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “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 evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from December 15, 1999 to July 25, 2003 at which time she was discharged...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00311

    Original file (ND02-00311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Hello Members of The Board,My name is (Applicant), I want to re-enter the Navy that is the reason that I need my discharge changed. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 U. S. Navy Seabee Rates PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 991027 - 991114 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00313

    Original file (ND03-00313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 000323 - 000329 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00014

    Original file (ND04-00014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. Airman B_ (Applicant) will continue to be an administrative burden at this command and I strongly recommend that he be separated from the Naval Service under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00342

    Original file (ND04-00342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    021016: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions). There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the conduct of the Applicant’s Administrative Separation Board. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00719

    Original file (ND00-00719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During XOI, Capt V_____ told me that they would do everything possible to ensure my benefits, specifically the G.I. 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, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 941221 - 950711 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950712 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00824

    Original file (ND03-00824.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 010716: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.010716: 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...