Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01243
Original file (ND03-01243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01243

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 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 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. When I was in the U.S. Navy, I found myself to be very undisciplined. It was not easy for me to take orders from anyone. I was considered a knuckle head, a hard ass; then again I was young. Now I’m older and very mature. I’m very familiar with military rules and policy, and I’m ready to defend GOD, my country and myself. I’m asking you to please upgrade my discharge so that I may re-enter the military. I will be a great asset, I’m hard working, intelligent, quiet, but I’m the best you’ll ever have.

My main problem was my anger or temper, I did not know how to channel that anger, now I do know how to channel my anger in a constructive way, not acting in a violent way. I know how to obey orders from my superiors, because I know I will definitely be an officer.

I hope that you really take my application into consideration, and I will assure you that by your accept this, it will not go in vein.”

Marked additional issues attached, but none were found.
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)     960717 - 960930  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961001               Date of Discharge: 970815

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: AA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*        Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 4

*No Marks Available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970710:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault to an Airman on 970604 and assault to an ABE3 on 970622.
         Award: Forfeiture of $450.00 pay per month for 2 months (1 month suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

970712:  Record of Counseling: SNM was U.A. from the 2130, 970712, night check restricted men’s muster until 2245, 970712. SNM was found asleep in his rack in S-2 berthing.

970713:  Record of Counseling: SNM was U.A. from the 1800, 970713, restricted men’s muster until 1820, 970713.

970720:  Record of Counseling: Failure to comply with an order or regulation. On or about 1700, 970720, SNM was utilizing the head of the line for evening meal. SNM did work for S-2 Mess previously and is fully aware of rules and privileges for the head of line.

970727:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: (11 Specifications),
         Failure to go to appointed place of duty to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster (10 specifications) and Man Overboard Muster (1 specification).

970801:  Medical Officer indicates psychiatric examination not necessary.
970801:  Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 86 (11 Specifications), failure to go to my appointed place of duty. The Applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

970802:  The Commanding Officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge.

970811:  Unauthorized absentee from TPU Naval Station, San Diego, CA at 0700, 970811. Intention unknown.

970815:  Discharged in Absentia.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged in absentia on 19970815 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 (D and E).

Issue 1: 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 he may feel that his youth and immaturity 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 he was unsuitable for further service. His service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and admitting to violating Article 86 of the UCMJ eleven times thus substantiating the misconduct . 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.

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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days, upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00585

    Original file (ND04-00585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). When I wasn’t making enough in the military and my family was on the verge of being put out on the street, I didn’t know what to do. I married my girlfriend, worked full time, and saved enough money so my family could live while I was gone.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00932

    Original file (ND02-00932.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00932 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis reminded that he remains eligible for a personal...

  • 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 | ND04-00365

    Original file (ND04-00365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests 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:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) Orientation/Registration information Spring 2004 Applicant’s DD Form 215 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01246

    Original file (ND03-01246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01246 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030721. We received a letter from the Dept of the Navy Stating that I have a chance to waive my discharge code. 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00436

    Original file (ND00-00436.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00436 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000222, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. 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 (D and E).The applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00047

    Original file (ND99-00047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    discharge. The Board found the applicant had requested an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) in lieu of a Special Court Martial on 27 Feb 97 in order to avoid the possibility of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Further, applicant’s submitted issue contains text admitting having been UA by stating “…I wanted out, and off of that ship.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00904

    Original file (ND03-00904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00904 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. During the time I was UA, I was working and never did I get into trouble. Other reason: My acting LPO at the time MM1 D___ and my assaulterMM3 B___ were good friends.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00489

    Original file (ND02-00489.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00489 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 920430: Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: Did on or about 910919, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS INDEPENDENCE located at Yokosuka, Japan, and did remain so absent until apprehended on or about 920309 (142...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00879

    Original file (ND03-00879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00879 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My first incident of Non-Judicial Punishment was the result of a port call in March of 1998 the ship had in Cairns.