Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00364
Original file (ND04-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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



ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND04-00364

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031218. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for discharge be changed to “completed enlistment obligation.” The Applicant requests a documentary record 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 review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040910. 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
1. “I requested pattern of misconduct change to completed ENLISTMENT OBLIGATION FULLY on 10-10-289 PLEASE

 My discharge was inequitable because it was base on 24 months of service, I stood up to my command had a hearing and found not guilty by officer of my command and I feel that I did not have a pattern of misconduct which is unfounded and also I would like the (general) changed to honorable (Please) Mainly for employment reasons.

I would greatly appreciate General Under Honorable Conditions 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)     840607 - 841008  COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 841009               Date of Discharge: 891010
Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 05 00 02         (Does not exclude lost time)
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 38/42
Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.56 (5)    Behavior: 3.40 (5)                OTA: 3.68
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, SSDR with Bronze Star, NUC (2), NEM
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 3

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

841012:  Applicant briefed on Navy's policy of drug and alcohol abuse.
880114:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0730, 880106 to 2110, 880108 (2 days/surrendered).
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-2. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
880223:  Retention Warning from AIR ANTISUBMARINE SQUADRON THIRTY: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880326:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 880326.
880327:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0140, 880327.

 880419:  Vacate suspended reduction to E-2 awarded at CO’s NJP dated 880114 due to continued misconduct.
880419:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0700-1908, 880405.
         Award: Forfeiture of $429.15 per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
890426:  NAVDRUGLAB, Jacksonville, FL, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 890419, tested positive for cocaine.
880429:  Vacate suspended reduction to E-1 awarded at CO’s NJP dated 880419 due to continued misconduct.

 890720:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A.
Award: Extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
890731:  Commanding Officer, Air Antisubmarine Squadron THIRTY notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of the UCMJ, Article 112(a), wrongful use of cocaine, misconduct due to drug abuse and by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by 3 NJP’s within your current enlistment.
890731:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
890830:  Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse. Abuse denied. Random urinalysis on 890419. DAPA and physician found Applicant not dependent and recommended separation. Commanding Officer recommends separation. Comments: DAAR delayed due to legal processing. SNMs potential for future Naval Service is Poor.
890907:  Branch Medical Clinic: Drug evaluation: No evidence of drug or ETOH abuse.
890927:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had not committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

891002:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
891003:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19891010 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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: The Applicant requests a change in the Narrative Reason for Separation to “Completed Enlistment Obligation Fully on 10-10-89”. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to pattern of misconduct was the reason the Applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. 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 in the Applicant’s Narrative Reason for Separation and therefore consider his discharge proper and equitable. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that he served the United States well and he is entitled to an upgrade. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge 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. The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 112a of the UCMJ. 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. Relief denied.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT A PATTERN 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 | ND99-01033

    Original file (ND99-01033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AEAN, USN Docket No. 881128: Retention Warning from Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 17: Advised of deficiency (Cautioned that future performance in violation of Navy policies is unacceptable and do not meet the weight/body fat requirement. 890201: Retention Warning from Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 17: Advised of deficiency (Failure to properly provide for the financial well being of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00149

    Original file (ND02-00149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870223 - 870322 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870323 Date of Discharge: 890629 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 02...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00238

    Original file (ND01-00238.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. No indication of appeal in the record.920201: Civil Conviction for theft; stolen license tag, driving while license suspended, faulty equipment [Extracted from CO's message].920218: Civil Conviction for driving while license suspended, faulty equipment, violation of probation for leaving the scene of an accident [Extracted from CO's message]. At...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00771

    Original file (ND01-00771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00771 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010515, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FMS) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to not the contentions as set forth on the application by the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00378

    Original file (ND02-00378.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930430 - 930912 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930913 Date of Discharge: 960410 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01170

    Original file (ND01-01170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880126 - 880327 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 880328 Date of Discharge: 911016 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 03 06 19 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 20 Years Contracted: 4 (3 months...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00908

    Original file (ND01-00908.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 891201 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 states: “At the time of my...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00947

    Original file (ND00-00947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00947 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000728, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Violation of UCMJ, Article 123A (4 specifications): Specification 1: Presented a check for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01340

    Original file (ND04-01340.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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member1) Joint Meritorious Unit Award citation for April 1988 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870501 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00064

    Original file (ND03-00064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00064 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021007, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.900411: Medical Evaluation: Applicant was evaluated and it was determined there is no evidence of neurotic or psychotic disorder, Applicant is able to determine right from wrong, and there is no evidence of physiologic/psychologic addiction to drugs or...