Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00016
Original file (ND04-00016.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00016

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 20040628. 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)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “All documents listed show that I have had an excellent Naval career. I have had no behavioral reprimands and feel that I was treated unjustly. Please review my documents + all me a hearing if the Review Board does not suffice in regards to my request for an honorable discharge. I would also like to request that I can immediately qualify for my GI Bill. Thank you.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Two letters from member of congress
Twenty-one pages from Applicant’s service record
Letter to congressman
Letter to Defense Hotline
Applicant’s log
Three pages from Applicant’s medical record
Leave request copy
Letter from VA to Applicant

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     970408 - 970729  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970730               Date of Discharge: 020618

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 10 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 62

 Highest Rate: HN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00                 Behavior: 4.00            OTA: 3.57

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NUC, FMFSR, KCM, HSM, SSDR, NATO, NDSM (2), MM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010509:  Medical Evaluation, NH, CLNC. Diagnosed with reactive airway disease (RAD). Eight months limited duty.
011212:  Medical Evaluation, NH, CLNC. Diagnosed with persistent RAD. Recommended administrative separation.
020104:  Cdr, MC, USN, Department of Family Practice recommended that Applicant be administratively separated due to a physical condition not amounting to a physical disability. Diagnosed with reactive airway disease (RAD). PEB found Applicant fit for duty.
020531:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey order.
         Award: Reduction to HN. No indication of appeal in the record.
020611:  Applicant requested separation based upon his severe asthma, RAD.

020614:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, CLNC directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability .

Partial discharge package

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020618 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability (A). In the absence of a complete 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. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable is inappropriate. Relief denied.

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

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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. 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. 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 33, effective
28 Aug 01 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-120 (formerly 3620200), SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS.

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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01252

    Original file (ND03-01252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030721. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Furthermore, my reenlistment code should be changed to RE-I since I was not allowed to stay on active duty and was denied due process.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00791

    Original file (ND03-00791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but not equitable (C and D).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00952

    Original file (ND04-00952.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “I was discharged for medical reasons & should have received an Honorable 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00002

    Original file (ND03-00002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00002 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00674

    Original file (MD99-00674.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DD214 says only "discharge". 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, the Board found that the applicant believes that he should have received an Honorable discharge. The Board also found that the applicant indicated, on his enlistment physical and boot camp physical, that he did not have asthma, when in fact he did as evidence...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00750

    Original file (ND03-00750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 and 2: By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of services as “Uncharacterized” unless there were unusual circumstances regarding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00520

    Original file (ND01-00520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of applicant's DD Form 214 Thirty-one pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990625 - 990930 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 991001 Date of Discharge: 000522 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01400

    Original file (ND03-01400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    P: Referred to PMNH for further evaluation.020117: Addiction Rehabilitation Department: A/P: Applicant in treatment at ARD for EOTH, now with suicide ideation per evaluation by staff psychologist. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20020809 with a general (under honorable conditions) for convenience of the government due to a physical or mental condition, not a disability (A). However, the NDRB is authorized to consider...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00611

    Original file (ND04-00611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service, and the narrative reason, received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. Therefore, I order FR D_s’ discharge from active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00864

    Original file (ND00-00864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. 990104: Branch Medical Clinic, Great Lakes: Chief Complaint - Pt had seizure last p.m. Pt had one other seizure 9 months ago, went to civilian E.R yesterday. Pt evaluated by Neurology.