Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00645
Original file (ND04-00645.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-IT2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00645

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040309. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 20041112. 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). Discharged in absentia.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “From the time of entry into the military service (U.S. Navy) until my discharge, I’ve continued an outstanding/clean record, with zero flaws. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one civil matter, which was used in my discharge proceedings. All of my evaluations have been excellent. I’ve served whole hearted in the U.S. Navy, and strongly deserve this upgrade. Upgrading myself to Honorable will not only benefit myself, but my wife and children also.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) (current enlistment)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) (previous enlistment)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE
Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890620 - 890627  COG
         Active: USN                        890628 - 940118  HON
                   USN                       940119 - 991018  HON
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     000111 - 001112  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 000113               Date of Discharge: 000613
Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 05 01
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 29                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34/25
Highest Rate: RM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
*No marks found in service record.
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MSM, CAR, JMUC, NUC, MUC, GCM (2), NDSM, ASM, AFSM, AFEM, SASM, N&MCOSM (3), NPMR, KLM (K), KLM (SA)
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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).
 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000613:  Commander, Amphibious Group TWO directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. [Discharged in absentia]
Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000613 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (D).

Issue 1. The Applicant states his discharge was “inequitable because it was based on a civil matter.” There is no requirement that a sailor’s infractions must be adjudicated at court-martial or nonjudicial punishment in order to be separated by reason of commission of a serious offense. The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his action. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. Relief denied.

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. 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 28, effective
30 Mar 00 until 29 Aug 00, 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 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.
C. 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.

 D. 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.


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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01068

    Original file (ND02-01068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully; M_ J. D_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 BCNR's ltr, dtd Jun 28, 2002, to the Applicant advising him to petition the NDRB Applicant's petition (DD Form 149) to BCNR, dtd May 24, 2002 Memo For Record, dtd Nov 14, 2001, from TPU to Performance Division, PSD Superior Court of State of Delaware count documents (12 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00252

    Original file (ND04-00252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to uncharacterized. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. 010906: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01225

    Original file (ND02-01225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01225 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to AR. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01448

    Original file (ND03-01448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry-level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government.” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01429

    Original file (ND03-01429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01429 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020405: Charge Sheet: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 120: Rape Seaman Recruit on 011123.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00065

    Original file (ND03-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00222

    Original file (ND04-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19971215 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01193

    Original file (ND02-01193.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01193 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Very Respectfully, (Signed by Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's letter to the Board, undated Copy of DD Form 214 Puerto Rico Police Record, dated 29 July 2002 PART II -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00356

    Original file (ND02-00356.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00356 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Michigan Dept of Social Services, Medical Needs, ICO N_ C_, dtd 6/15/99 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...