Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01314
Original file (ND03-01314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YNSA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01314

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030805. 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040617. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.“My discharge was inequitable & improper because it is based on an isolated minor infraction in a period of service lasting 30 months. I have attached a statement for review by the board and hope that it weights heavily.”

Applicant’s Statement:

 “ I wish to address several points relating to my service in the U.S Navy. I began my enlistment enrolled in the Nuclear Training program. I reported all traffic violations that were within my recollection. I began training in Orlando, FL in April of 1994. I was a flag bearer during recruit training and was being made into a fine sailor. I received notice that my Nuclear enrollment had been called into question due to a traffic violation that had not been reported prior to the “moment of truth.” I waited through the remainder of my recruit training to be told on the final week that I had been disenrolled and was not eligible for A-school training but, rather, was sent directly to apprentice training. I laterally transitioned to seaman from fireman. I was also demoted to E-l from E-3. I completed my Apprentice Training and received excellent marks. I accepted my fate and prepared to join the fleet.
Without reluctance and without animosity. I reported to Ingleside, Texas, and quickly became a very qualified junior sailor. I excelled in fire party training and was sent to ‘live trainers” on the East coast to further my knowledge and to assist my ship in its needs for qualifications. I was the only E-3 to ever receive my Scene leader qualification during Engine room catastrophes. My reviews were adequate and I was to be recommended for ROTC. I did not qualify and continued to excel in qualifications. I completed a WESTPAC deployment and a deployment along the East coast. I was a good sailor among good sailors. The downside to my sea service in Ingleside as part of Rotational Crew Alpha was that it was a station of very low morale. Senior sailors surrounding me who had been to the “real” Navy, as they called it, had difficult times accepting the smaller more confined and less respected service that it was to be aboard these MCM class vessels. I unfortunately at 20, I was impressionable and naïve. MN morale was low and my disillusionment with the service had come to fruition. I began to act out.
I was taken to Captain’s mast for leaving station and for signing out a friend on leave early. I wish to address the two incidents directly. First, I left my assigned post in Aft Steering to use the restroom. Second, the sailor and First class Petty Officer that I signed out had his leave begin on a Monday and I signed him out on the preceding Friday. While I received mast, and lost my newly frocked third class chevron, the First class Petty Officer who asked for the favor received no mast and no reprimand. It was at my mast that I was formally set to be discharged from the service for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.
At the time of this Captain’s mast, the command was in the process of transitioning commanding officers. The outgoing commanding officer masted and had ordered my discharge. The incoming commanding officer offered, through the Executive Officer. to overturn the ordered discharge and keep in the service. After being demoted to YNSA, I felt I could no longer contain my resentment for the command. I felt that after trying to excel in so many different ways that I was constantly being “taken down a notch” for the purpose of setting an example for the rest of the command. With great reluctance and much fear. I refused the offer with thanks and processed my own discharge as junior Yeoman for the command.
I am in the process of trying to expand my horizons and move in new directions by going to college. I have been accepted to the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign for the fall of 2003 semester. I will be attending in part due to the wonderful Illinois Veteran’s Grant program to cover tuition and fees. I am asking that my service record be reviewed and my discharged be upgraded so that I may receive my GI Bill benefits for which I signed up for and paid into but more directly to clear my conscience that I did not serve my country honorably.
I thank you for your time and your consideration. I hope that my service record, showing my reviews and qualifications and training records, along with this added text is sufficient to warrant an upgrade.

Sincerely,

D_ A_ B_ ( Applicant )
(Social Security Number deleted) ”

Documentation
Only the Applicant’s service record was reviewed, as the Applicant’s medical record could not be obtained and the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider:

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940211 - 940410  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940411               Date of Discharge: 961011

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 94

 Highest Rate: YNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.0 (1)     Behavior: 4.0 (1)                 OTA: 4.0

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
940505:  Applicant acknowledged disclosures to the Recruit Quality Assurance Team of all involvements in juvenile offenses, drug and alcohol involvement and serious medical and mental problems.

940602:  Applicant disenrolled from the Nuclear Power Program due to failure to meet program entrance requirements.

960819:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
         Award: E-4 recommendation and removal of E-4 promotion until further notice. No indication of appeal in the record.
960823:  Retention Warning from CO, USS DEVASTATOR (MCM 6): Advised of deficiency (guilty of violation UCMJ, Article 86 – unauthorized absence for a period of three days), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

961002:  NJP for violation of UCMJ. [EXTRACTED FROM ENLISTED PERFORMANCE RECORD WHICH INDICATES A REDUCTION IN PAYGRADE TO YNSA (E-2).]
 month(s), reduction to E-1.
961011:  DD Form 214 issued with characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions) due to Misconduct –Minor disciplinary infractions.
[ADMIN DISCHARGE PACKAGE NOT CONTAINED IN SERVICE RECORD.]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19961011 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions (A). In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “30 months.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered his discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB). There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veteran’s benefits and this issue does not serve to provide foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

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. The 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 .
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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00998

    Original file (ND99-00998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My other than honorable discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 87 months of service with no other adverse action (MILPERSMAN 1910-202, 1910-302; all service record entries for petitioner prior to September, 1993; statement of petitioner, page 9, par. My other than honorable discharge was inequitable because I was not required to volunteer for CAAC Level III treatment in order to receive it, contrary to what my Commanding Officer and chain of command had...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01220

    Original file (ND03-01220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01220 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030711. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880408 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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 first issue states: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01277

    Original file (ND03-01277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Honorable discharge dated 28 “After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidenced assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for discharge upgrade of his current General Under Honorable Conditions to that of Honorable. In attest to his performance, the appellant has requested review of his recruiting excellent awards;...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00067

    Original file (ND03-00067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00067 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021009, requested that the characterization of service on the 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 Character Reference ltr from S_ S_, Chief of Police, dtd Aug 28, 2002 Letter from Employer, J_ S_, Service Manager, Railserve Inc.,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01242

    Original file (ND99-01242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :831215: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements on 7 Dec83, to wit: alter an official document by placing his own photograph on another service member's identification card. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01187

    Original file (ND02-01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, since Applicant received only two non-judicial punishments, he did not meet the criteria for discharge by reason of “pattern of misconduct,” as authorized by separation authority. For the Applicant’s edification, Sailors with similar service records normally receive a discharge characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01096

    Original file (ND99-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the “Pattern of Misconduct” and “Serious Offense” are not supported and do not warrant separation with a characterization of General Discharge and a RE-4 code. Based on the applicant’s documented misconduct, his Commanding Officer was within his legal authority to discharge the applicant for Commission of a serious offense and characterize his discharge as General (under Honorable conditions). The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00092

    Original file (ND03-00092.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSR, USN Docket No. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION When I was discharged from the Navy.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00057

    Original file (ND00-00057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00057 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined that to...