Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00521
Original file (ND04-00521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND04-00521

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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 20040921. 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. “I was discharged for writing bad checks. They totaled about $2800 at the time I was going through a lot with my fiancé. I was spending the money at strip bars I was immature and did not know how to handle my emotions. Please look at the record of my service.

I received letters of recommendations.

My record of promotion showed I was generally a good service member.

I have been a good citizen since discharge.

My ability to serve was impaired by my youth and immaturity.
Psychiatric problems I had impaired my ability to serve.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of Self-Help Guide to Discharge Upgrading (4 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     910710 - 920623  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920624               Date of Discharge: 930828

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 62

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (3)    Behavior: 3.46 (3)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, BATTLE”E”(2), LOC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

950623:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: (16 Specifications), Check, worthless, making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds.
         Award: Restriction for 60 days, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

950629:  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 all punishment under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.
950629:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
950709:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

950811:  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 19950828 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the 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: When the service of a member of the United States Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions 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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for sixteen violations of Article 134 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 is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

 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 | ND00-00963

    Original file (ND00-00963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION During the time immediately preceding my discharge, I was never approached by the Navy with any offer of advice, assistance or counseling. 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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00876

    Original file (ND02-00876.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00876 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the 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 résumé PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00644

    Original file (ND99-00644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It has been almost 4 years and I have had no response from the Review Board. CA 960202: Vacation of suspension ordered approved and executed.960305: CO, Naval Hospital, Twentynine Palms, CA notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.960305: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00163

    Original file (ND02-00163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It clearly does not reflect my naval record and honor before the incident. 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: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 940214 - 940412 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940413 Date of Discharge: 960313 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00413

    Original file (ND04-00413.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :960708: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 960708.960808: Applicant from unauthorized absence 0800, 960808 (30 days/surrendered). At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00871

    Original file (ND99-00871.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Member signed page 13 accepting Level III treatment for drug abuse. Service member will be administratively separated after completion of Level III treatment for both alcohol and drugs. 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 (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00873

    Original file (ND03-00873.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00873 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00135

    Original file (ND00-00135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 940707: 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 940720 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00348

    Original file (ND99-00348.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The only reason why I did enlist in the U.S. NAVY is to receive my education benefits. No indication of appeal in the record.970111: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct.970111: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00407

    Original file (ND99-00407.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 her application. 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. During the list...