Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01240
Original file (ND03-01240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SHSA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01240

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030717. 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 review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040514. 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:

“1. I entered the Navy with the intent to make it a career, I was a young man fresh out of high school and was signed up before I was old enough to do so in the D.E.P. program. I also just lost my father a year before entering the Navy, I had a new wife and a son that I left to persue a career in the Navy. I left my wife (N__ C__) and son (A__ T__) in Flint MI. and everything was going well, But after I made my first six month deployment on the USS Thedore Roosevelt CVN-71 I began to notice a difference in my wife I received a few “Dear John” letters from her and at the time I felt as if I was all alone, and the demands of being out to sea begin to set in and with trying to effectively do my job, I was angry! And with no one who I felt understood my situation, I began to lash out at the people who were around me to try and vent my frustrations on people who had nothing to do with what I was going through. So I eventually went to Captain’s Mast and was reduced in rank given extra duty and other punishments. My wife was in Flint having an affair with other men, and I couldn’t do anything about it while out to sea, she lied to me and told me a child that was being born (J___ C___) was mine. But come to find out she lied to cover up her own misktakes. I wanted to be able to be there and try to figure out the what was going on with my wife and if I could do anything to fix the situation. Then I felt at the time it couldn’t be fixed there, so I tried to get out and see what was wrong with my marriage and son. Then my son became ill and the hole in his heart opened back up and the doctors had to operate. And I was bombarded at the time being so young and inexperienced I felt I had to do what I felt was best at the time and I was given an OTH and would like to have it upgraded please so I can have a favorable military record to obtain better employment and give myself and my children something to be proud of. I regret now the way I handled the situation and wish I would have used better judgement to handle what I felt at the time was an almost end of my world situation. And would respectfully request that my OTH be upgraded to an Honorable status. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Document entitled “Summary” was listed by the Applicant on his DD214 as an attachment, but no documents were found.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930727 - 940710  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940711               Date of Discharge: 960623

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SHSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (1)    Behavior: 3.60 (1)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, NUC, AFSM, NM

 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 :

960326:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: (2 Specifications), Specification 1: Disrespect to a SH1 by arguing and cursing him on 960122; Specification 2: Disrespect to a SK2 by arguing and cursing him on 960122; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Fail to obey a lawful order from an SH1 by failing to report to firewatch office.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
960405:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer by saying to another service member disrespectful things about LTJG R___, violation of UCMJ Article 91: Disrespect toward a Petty Officer by (1) using obscene language toward SH1 M___ on 960403; (2) by yelling obscene language toward SH1 M___ on 960404; violation of UCMJ Article 128: Assault by pointing his finger in the face of SH1 M___(1) on 960403 (2) on 960404; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Communicate a threat to SH1 M___ by saying, “I’ll whip your butt if you don’t stop talking” or words to that effect.
         Award: Forfeiture of $490.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
960430:  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 your nonjudicial punishments on 26 March and 5 April 1996 during your current enlistment.
960430:  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.
960517:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

960619:  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 19960623 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. The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by family situation. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to ensure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. Relief denied.

Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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 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 | 1997_Navy | ND97-01274

    Original file (ND97-01274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While I personally feel that SHSA J_’s offenses warrant an other than honorable characterization of service, I recognize the limitations placed on me by [MILPERSMAN Chapter 36] and have separated SHSA J_ with a characterization of service as general under honorable conditions as recommended by the board.”961016: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Following disciplinary action, if...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00122

    Original file (MD01-00122.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00122 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001102, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. He would try to intimidate me in the shop everyday, by forcing respect from me, so the Marine sergeant requested that I be on this operation with him. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00598

    Original file (MD01-00598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00598 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010328, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. On 5 Feb. 1999, an investigation was conducted by Capt. On I I May, 7 weeks after my request for a board and almost 4 months after my NJP, I was informed that the board was to be held on 4 July in San Diego and I was 'to be flow there a few days prior so that I would have time to discuss the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00149

    Original file (ND02-00149.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:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870223 - 870322 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870323 Date of Discharge: 890629 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 02...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1998_Navy | ND98-01102

    Original file (ND98-01102.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    We ask the Board to consider his personality disorder as a reason for separation. Applicant was considered self-destructive and a continuing risk of harm to self or others.941128: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of a diagnosed personality disorder of such severity as to render the applicant incapable of serving adequately in the naval service as evidenced by medical...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00558

    Original file (MD02-00558.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 Applicant’s service. While he may feel that he just was not able to perform the duties expected of a Marine, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01044

    Original file (ND99-01044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01044 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990729, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01096

    Original file (ND04-01096.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 You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.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: Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards Attn: Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00051

    Original file (ND04-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00051 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031008. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00937

    Original file (ND99-00937.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00937 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990702, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the re-entry code changed from RE-4 to RE-1 or RE-2. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. After this took place, I had talked to my mother a few times to see how she and my brother were doing.