Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00429
Original file (ND04-00429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DKSA, USN
Docket No. ND04-00429

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040121. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. 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. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040922. 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 3630600.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “An upgrade or change is requested because my discharged was not based on my performance in the service. My discharged was based on my personal check bounced.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Sailor of the Quarter Nomination from ENS G_ M_ M_, SC, dated March 16, 1992
Administrative Remarks, during the period May 26, 1992 to June 05, 1992
Administrative Remarks, during the period May 11, 1992 to May 22, 1992
Administrative Remarks, during the period April 27, 199 to May 08, 1992
Reference of character from PN1 (SW) F_, dated October 26, 1994
Reference of character from PNC (SW) T_, dated October 27, 1994
Citation for Exemplary Performance (June 15, 1993 – December 15, 1993)
Citation for Outstanding Performance (November 1991 to April 1992)
Copy of DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Enlisted Qualifications History (9 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     None
         Active: USN                        901204 - 940324  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940325               Date of Discharge: 950915

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: DK3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.80 (1)    Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA: 3.50

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM (2), SSDR (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 2

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940325:  Member reenlisted for three years.

 940628:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Financial irresponsibility), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
941004:  Unauthorized absence since 0730. Intentions unkown.
941018:  CPO Disciplinary Review Board recommended that the case be given to OICs Mast and that the member be released from active duty under an Administrative Separation for the commission of a serious offense, furthermore; the discharge will be general under honorable conditions.

 941104:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties; violation of UCMJ Article 123A (18 Specs): Making, drawing, or uttering checks, drafts or order without sufficient funds on 940519 for the amount of ($100.00), 940520 ($100.00), 940521 ($100.00), 940521 ($450.00), 940522 ($100.00), 940319 ($150.00), 940320 ($150.00), 940319 ($150.00), 940320 ($150.00), 940321 ($150.00), 940321 ($150.00), 940321 ($50.00), 940322 ($150.00), 940323 ($150.00), 940322 ($45.40), 940325 ($150.00), 940326 ($150.00), 940404 ($700.00); violation of UCMJ Article 134 (4 Specs): Debt, dishonorably failed to pay just debts to SN S_ for $464.00 on 940815, to LN2 R_ for $500.00 on 940831, to FC1 P_ for $60.00 on 940930.
         Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

941104:  Unauthorized absence since 1200. Intentions unknown.

950404:  Unauthorized absence since 0800. Intentions unknown.

950404:  Reduction to E-3 awarded at CO’s NJP of 941104 vacated this date due to continued misconduct.

950406:  Surrendered onboard as of 1030.
950509:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 Specs)
(1 Spec): On or about 0730, 950404, absent himself from place of duty and remain so absent until on or about 0700, 950405.
(2 Spec): On or about 0730, 950405 without authority, absent himself from his place of duty and did remain so absent until on or about 1030, 950406; violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order on or about 1300, 950331; violation of UCMJ Article 123a: On about 950212 defrauded Reno Check Cashing Service by writing a check for $820.00 knowingly he did not have sufficient funds.
         Award: Forfeiture of $478.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.
950523:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct during current enlistment.
950524:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
950711:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and by unanimous vote, had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

950718:  Letter of Deficiency submitted by Applicant’s counsel.

950731:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and pattern of misconduct during current enlistment.

950830:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950915 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: The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions to include violating UCMJ, Articles 86, 92 and 123a, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated . The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant ’ s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. 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 his misconduct while on active duty.

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. 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 – 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-01071

    Original file (ND00-01071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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: “I feel my discharge was improper because, I was discharged for misconduct that I did not commit. While the applicant’s service record shows various decorations, his documented misconduct outweighed his otherwise creditable service. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00482

    Original file (ND00-00482.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00482 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. In the acknowledgment letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The letter from Admiral Boorda states “If (Applicant) really is not drinking, is reporting to work on time and is ready to accept...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00190

    Original file (ND02-00190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Reference Letter from D___ L. R____ dtd March 23, 2001 Employment Reference Letter from P____ T___, Grocery Mgr, dtd July 26, 2000 Letter from Applicant dtd November 8, 2001 Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 850116 - 890112 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 841019 - 850115 COG...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00493

    Original file (ND99-00493.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00493 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990224, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The offenses involve being drunk and disorderly, which is in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ; This is a serious offense, and is an misconduct, your service record reflect a pattern of misconduct as described in MILPERSMAN 3630600), notified of corrective actions and assistance available,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00755

    Original file (ND99-00755.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00755 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990310, 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, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that t Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)A.Naval Military...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500526

    Original file (ND0500526.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “something that I could re-enlist.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Rantoul, IL. No indication of appeal in the record.010518: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00244

    Original file (ND04-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600427

    Original file (ND0600427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Partial relief based upon this impropriety is warranted.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. ” 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:Secretary of the Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600865

    Original file (ND0600865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00865 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060614. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: USN 19930409 - 19950509 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00410

    Original file (ND03-00410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to good of the service. CA action 911021: Approved findings and sentences.910920: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your Summary Courts-Martial on...