Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398
Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND03-01398

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. 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: 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. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). I was released from the United States Navy in April of 1999, due to not knowing how to behave. I am including this letter because I would like to let you know the reasons for my release. At the time of my service I was young and missing home. I didn’t realize how much of a great opportunity I had at the time. I would like another chance to serve for my country, so I am asking that my release code be upgraded so I can reenlist and prove that I am able to be all I can be.
Thank you, J_ M. R_ R_ (Applicant)”

 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: None
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990302               Date of Discharge: 990517

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 02 16
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: Unknown
Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
*No marks found in service record.
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 :

990421:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80: Attempt to go on unauthorized absence on 990319, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: With intent to deceive make to EMC, an official statement on 990317, to wit: that her daughter had died, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Steal $200.00, the property of recruits in Division by collecting money under false pretenses by telling her Division her daughter had died and that she was going on emergency leave.
         Award: Forfeiture of $207 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
990511:  Commanding Officer directed discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. [Extracted from Block 25, DD Form 214.]
990517:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19990517 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: 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. 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. While she may feel that her 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 she was unsuitable for further service. Her service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violating UCMJ, articles 80, 107 and 121, 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 her 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 her 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 | ND01-01021

    Original file (ND01-01021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Statement from Navy Exchange Service Command, Virginia Beach, VA PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950331 - 950522 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950523 Date of Discharge: 990517 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00739

    Original file (ND01-00739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the applicant's service record was reviewed. The applicant did not provide any of these documents. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days), and article 91 ( Willfully disobeying), if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00652

    Original file (ND03-00652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040311. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00765

    Original file (ND99-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000417. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980206 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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).Regarding the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01197

    Original file (ND02-01197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01197 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020814, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In 1997, I was discharged from the Navy with General (Under Honorable Conditions), due to misconduct! Evidence 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...

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01429

    Original file (ND03-01429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01429 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020405: Charge Sheet: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 120: Rape Seaman Recruit on 011123.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00549

    Original file (ND03-00549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 950710: Applicant ordered to active duty.970429: Applicant missed ship’s movement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980430 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • 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...