Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01453
Original file (ND03-01453.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMEAR, USNR
Docket No. ND03-01453

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 honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area. Applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040628. After a thorough review of the available 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1. In regards to my discharge from the United States Navy dated 1988/12/09, at that time I thought that the discharge I received was appropriate. However, at this time I feel that it is my obligation and duty to fulfill my contract with the United States Navy. Because of the discharge I received, my re-enlistment status is currently insufficient to obtain entry into the United States Navy Reserve. Therefore I respectfully request the review board change my discharge status to honorable.

As stated on my DD-214, minor disciplinary infractions were the reason for my General discharge. The main contributing factor was personal problems. They included transportation and marital problems. At this point they started to interfere with my job duties. These issues were addressed with my Commanding Officer. I was given two choices. Seek counseling and remain on duty in the U.S. Navy or leave and deal with my problems in the civilian world. I felt that my personal problems were overwhelming and I needed time outside the U.S. Navy to overcome them. It would’ve not been fair to the U.S. Navy to continue my service because I was not able to give them 100 percent and be the Sailor they expected or deserved.

Since my discharge I have dedicated my life to Aviation. For the past 13 years I have strived to be a better person and employee. I.E. dependable, reliable, honest. In my current position I work for a Contract Logistics Support Contractor and am responsible for the airworthiness of 22 U.S. Army and U.S. Air Guard aircraft. I have overcome all of the factors that led to my General discharge and I would like to prove to the U.S. Navy that I am a better person and Sailor.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter of Personal Recommendation dated August 20, 2003
Work History Listing

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 860206               Date of Discharge: 881209

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 68

 Highest Rate: AMEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.86 (3)    Behavior: 2.86 (3)                OTA: 3.31

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 3

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

860512:  Ordered to active duty for 48 months under the TAR program.
870111:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs): Failure to go to appointed place of duty on or about 0700, 861229; 0800, 861226 and 2000-2400, 861226.
         Award: Forfeiture of $369.00pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

881118:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence without authority. Member failed to go to the appointed place of duty on or about 1600-2000 on 880702.
         Award: Reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
881130:  Punishment of reduction in rate to AMEAS suspended at CO’s NJP held on 880729 vacated due to continued misconduct.

881130:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence without authority from at or about 0700, 881106 until 0700, 881109 (3days/S).
         Award: Reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19881209 under honorable conditions (general) 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 the 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 contends that most his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his "personal problems". While he may feel that his personal problems were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief on this basis is 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. 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. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. Relief denied.

Concerning reenlistment, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy or Marine Corps. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560-A, effective 870615 - 890110), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 | ND99-00499

    Original file (ND99-00499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USNR Docket No. ND99-00499 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990224, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Accordingly, the reason for discharge shall change to Honorable/ Secretary Plenary Authority, MILPERSMAN 3630900.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01189

    Original file (ND03-01189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00578

    Original file (ND01-00578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 88 Highest Rate: AN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.45 (4) Behavior: 3.40 (4) OTA: 3.40 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM Days of Unauthorized Absence: 11 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01098

    Original file (ND99-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920717: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 2 days, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant’s Commanding Officer was within his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00438

    Original file (ND00-00438.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    931022: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 0900-1210, 15Oct93. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 931203 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).The applicant’s issue...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00035

    Original file (ND04-00035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.881130: Vacate suspended reduction to SA awarded at CO’s NJP dated 881123 due to continued misconduct.890210: Retention Warning from USS HALSEY (CG-23): Advised of deficiency (During your first two weeks onboard USS HALSEY you failed to go to your appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on five (5) separate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00019

    Original file (ND04-00019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Concerning reenlistment, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00001

    Original file (ND03-00001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Board found no impropriety or inequity regarding the conduct of the Applicant’s special court-martial. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00904

    Original file (ND04-00904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00904 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040512. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. ________________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00128

    Original file (ND00-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900412: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions and further recommended that the discharge not be suspended. Accordingly, I concur with the Board's recommendation that ABFAA (Applicant) be...