Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00586
Original file (ND04-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00586

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. 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 20041001. 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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter in regard to my discharge from the United States Navy on October 27, 2000. I was discharged under “other than honorable” conditions and was given a reentry code of Re-4. It has now been 3 years and several months later since I was discharged and I am once again interested in re-enlisting into the United States Army. I was told that I could not re-enlist because of the reentry code of Re-4 that I received and would have to request it to be changed. I did not know that I could have my Re Code changed and that is also another reason why it has taken me so long to request this change.

In regards to my separation from the United States Navy, it was a very unfortunate incident and a very ignorant and stupid mistake on my behalf. I take full responsibility for what I did. After Boot Camp, I was sent to Yokosuka, Japan to Serve Aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. After serving just a little over a month in Japan, I could not deal with being from home as well as not having friends in Japan. I felt like an outcast and there were several days where I felt very lonely. I also did not get along with the people that I worked with, so my work day was not very pleasant at all. I did try to talk to my commanding officer as well as the Chaplin aboard the ship but it did not help me. I eventually went AWOL and left the country, coming back to the United States, Orlando Florida, and eventually got caught on a routine traffic stop. I was gone for just a little over 30 days. As Mentioned Before, I take full responsibility for what I did. After being picked up in Orlando Florida, I spent 4 days in the County Jail and was eventually picked up by the Navy and taken to Jacksonville Florida where I awaited Captains Mast in the TPU unit. While in the TPU unit, I was placed on Liberty and was able to leave the base on the weekends if I did not have a duty day or any other responsibilities. Since my hometown was Orlando Florida, I went back to Orlando During the weekends. I do not know if this is included in my service records but to be on the safe side I would like to include this in case it had any affect on my Re-4 discharge. There was one weekend where I went back to Orlando Florida with my vehicle that I had just recently purchased and on the way back one Sunday evening, I had mechanical problems with my car as well as a tire that was no longer safe to drive all the way to Jacksonville from Orlando. I returned to Orlando that Sunday evening and although I was due for muster on Monday morning, I felt as long as I had paperwork to show what had happened, I would be alright. I called the TPU unit and advised them of what had happened and they told me to just come back as quickly as possible and to keep in touch. I brought my car to the shop and eventually ended up not returning to Jacksonville until Wednesday of that week. When I returned, the TPU staff took me off of liberty and placed me on non liberty because of the incidents that had happened that week. Although I submitted paperwork to the staff, they believed that it was false and fraudulent and did not care to see it. When I went to Captains Mast, I believe, but am not sure, that I was charged with two charges of AWOL and that is why I believe 1 got the Re-4 discharge under “other than honorable”conditions I take full responsibility in my actions for the first AWOL from my Duty Station in Yokosuka Japan but do believe that the second charge was not fair.

Since my discharge in the year 2000, I have maintained steady employment with a few employers such as Walt Disney World, Anheuser Busch, as well as small local companies. I have attended college Classes at a local community college and completed a 15 week program to become an Emergency Medical Technician. Currently, I am employed with a company called Convergys doing inbound Computer Technical Support, assisting customers with their DSL Connectivity issues as well as software and Hardware Issues. I have not been arrested since being discharged from active duty and believe that I am ready and willing to take on the responsibilities of the Armed Services. I have realized and learned that what I did, running from my problem at the time, was not the answer and am deeply sorry for what I did. I would like to now Join the United States Army and become a field medic. I would like to put the skills of Emergency Medical Technician to use with the men and woman of the military as well as pay the debt of time not served according to my original contract.

In closing, I would like to say Thank You for your time in considering my case and look forward to hearing a response.

Sincerely,

S_ M_ ( Applicant )”
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):
         Inactive: USNR(DEP)               000209 - 000215  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000216               Date of Discharge: 001027

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 08 12
         Inactive: 00 00 00

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rate: FR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*        Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 50

*No Marks made available for review

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

001012:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Specification 1: Did on or about 000728, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS KITTY HAWK (CV-63) located at Yokosuka, Japan and did remain so absent until on or about 000912, Specification 2: Did on or about 001005, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Transient Personnel Unit, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida and did remain so absent until on or about 001010.
 Award: Forfeiture of $465.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
001012:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidence by absent without leave (30 days or more).
001012:  Applicant advised of 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

001012:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by CO’s NJP on 001012.

001017:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20001027 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).

Issues 1: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity were contributing factors, they do not mitigate the Applicant’s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. His service record is marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating UCMJ, Article 86 thus substantiating the misconduct. Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

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 30, effective
30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00237

    Original file (ND01-00237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION CA (951008) Approved findings and sentence.950930: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense evidenced by your summary court martial on 950930, and by reason of convenience of the government on the basis of personality disorder as evidenced by your medical evaluation of 950929, and the undated psychiatric evaluation from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01250

    Original file (ND03-01250.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I then decided to extend my tour of duty for another two years to NALF San Clemente, which was the closest duty station to San Diego where I decided to complete my schooling. Not too long after I arrived in San Diego we found out that Alma was pregnant, but three months after, she called again with a bad news, she had a miscarriage.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01383

    Original file (ND03-01383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030819. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. (f) (1).As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to ensure a fair standard his administered,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00090

    Original file (ND03-00090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00090 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030912. Soon after that I was promptly with an “Other than Honorable” discharge indicating the reason as Drug Abuse.The events leading to my discharge require more of an explanation and I would like to take this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00496

    Original file (ND01-00496.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00496 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Doctors later told me that a person usually lives only six years after a heart attack and some organs age as much as twenty years. In addition, the NDRB recognizes that the applicant had a fairly good record while in the Navy, however, the applicant’s record fails to mitigate his civil conviction for battery, alcohol...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00841

    Original file (ND03-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 020204: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s discharge with a characterization of Other Than Honorable because ITSR V__’s special court martial did not impose a punitive discharge. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00673

    Original file (ND04-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, the reason for the discharge be changed to “alcohol abuse,” and “I respectfully request for the Board to take into consideration of changing my re-Entry code based upon my perseverance and dedication to making things right in my life with the Navy.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. However, due to his failure to follow his medically prescribed and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00828

    Original file (ND01-00828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00828 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010605, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980129 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00512

    Original file (ND01-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to scheduling a personal appearance hearing. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly Article 3630620. Dear Sir: I am taking this time to write to you and ask you to review my case and upgrade my discharge, from General under honorable conditions to Honorable Discharge.The reason I was discharged...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00581

    Original file (ND02-00581.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. Based upon his misconduct, I believe that ABHAA H_ (Applicant) has no potential for further naval service and recommend that he be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.] 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.