Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01271
Original file (ND03-01271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YN3, USN
Docket No. ND03-01271

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030723. 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 20040526. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to appeal my Administrative Separation (Under Other than Honorable Conditions) from the United States Navy on 15 December 1998.

Commander R_ B_ (Commanding Officer Training Squadron TWENTY-ONE. Naval Air Station Kingsville Texas) administered the separation. Commander S_ S_ (Executive Officer), LT. G_ H_ (Legal Officer) and ABF2 K. K_ (Acting Squadron Chief and Leading Petty Officer). I was separated due to a $380.00 in insufficient checks to the Navy Exchange.

I had been having trouble managing my finances due to some unexpected occurrences in my life. In the first part of November 1998 Commander Byrd became aware of this problem and told me that I had two weeks to fix the problem or I would have to go to Captains Mast. I was unable to get the $380.00 to the Navy Exchange in time. I appealed to him to let me stay at the squadron since I was six weeks of my scheduled E.A.O.S and had served almost my entire enlistment. I planned to go to college under the Montgomery GI Bill and had contributed $1,200.00 toward it during my enlistment.

I paid my debt to the Navy Exchange, but when I returned from Thanksgiving Leave. I was told that I would be brought to Captains Mast. At Mast I was told that I was to be separated from the Navy due to this problem. I pleaded with them to please let me stay until Terminal Leave started (12/18/98). I did this for my G I Bill so I could go to school. Commander B_ said that “he had no help going to school, that he had to work his way through school and I could do it to.”

I tried to be a good Sailor and a good citizen to my community while in Kingsville. I participated in various charity programs such as Adopt an Angel (for underprivileged children) during Christmas. I spent time as an Asst. Coach for a Pop Warner football team (see attached award) and was given a Letter Of Appreciation for a Weapons Detachment.

I realize what I did was wrong. I have been out of the Navy for almost five years and I have managed to become a good citizen and a hard worker. I have donated time and money to various charities, and have since gotten my finances in order. I am only missing one thing from my life and that is the chance to go to school. I beg the members of the board to vote in my favor, give me a second chance in life and allow me the chance to go to school.

Sincerely.

A_ G_ H_ (Applicant)
SSN (social security number deleted)”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
DD Form 149, dated February 16, 2001
Letter of Commendation for December 13-18 1996
Letter of appreciation, dated February 6, 1998

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940829 - 950104  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950105               Date of Discharge: 981211

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 11 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 10                        AFQT: 61

 Highest Rate: YN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*        Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, Letter of Appreciation, Certificate of Commendation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No marks found in service record

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

UNDATED:         Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, violation of UCMJ, Article 123A: Making drawing or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 981204.]

990201:  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 submit a statement.
         
981204:  Commanding Officer directed discharge general (under 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 19981211 with a general (under 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 general under honorable conditions is warranted when the service member’s conduct constitutes a departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating the UCMJ, Articles 107 and 123a, thus substantiating the misconduct . It should be noted the Applicant received a “General (Under Honorable Conditions” and not “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” as he stated in his issue. 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 honorable 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 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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’s issue states: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01039

    Original file (ND03-01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. I was completely honest at my Mast, and lost my “A” school, but had the other charges suspended for 6 months. I also feel that based on my 47 months of excellent service, my promotion to E-5 , my good conduct medal, my 2 western pacific deployments, and my Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist award, my discharge should be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00740

    Original file (ND04-00740.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I was discharged with an Other Than Honorable discharge. ]020723: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer; violation of UCMJ Article 128: Assault.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151

    Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00065

    Original file (ND03-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00905

    Original file (ND00-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00905 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The United States Navy has been good to me and again, I am very proud to have served for such a great organization. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01226

    Original file (ND03-01226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00765

    Original file (ND03-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00765 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030326. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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: