Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00726
Original file (ND04-00726.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YNSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00726

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040330. 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 a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041008. 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 wish to enlist in the Naval Reserve and continue my career in the Naval Reserve. I would like to someday retire with Honorable service to my country.

2. “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action. I was release because I was caught on base with a conceal firearm that was not register with base security. After I had been attacked in Charleston S.C. I purchased a firearm for my protection. I never got it register or turn in on base at New London CT. Base security found the firearm and after the investigation I was offered the chance to take a voluntary separation instead of going to a Court Martial I excepted it not knowing that I would be given a Re 4 code And A other than Honorable discharge. I thought that I would someday be Able to Reenter the military so I tooked the separation. My Commander Officer told me that I would Have Had To be confined to base for 30 days And Extra duty to Just take the voluntary separation.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
 Letter from Applicant
Letter from Rev C.W. C_, Pastor
Job reference from Delta Downs Racetrack
Job reference dated 031202
Job reference undated
Volunteer statement from Gulf Coast Pop Warner Football

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930603 - 930627  COG
         Active: USMC              920616 - 920817  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930628               Date of Discharge: 950531

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: YN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.9 (4)     Behavior: 2.7 (3)                 OTA: 2.5

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Wrongful appropriation, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: False pretenses.
         Award: Forfeiture of $31.00 pay for 7 days, extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

950530: Applicant apprehended on Naval Submarine Base New London for possession of a firearm (handgun).
950530:  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 carrying of a concealed weapon.
950530:  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.

950530: Applicant placed on administrative separation leave.
950531:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

950719:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950531 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: 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.

Issue 2: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “28 months.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violating UCMJ, Articles 121 and 134 as well as arrest for carrying a concealed weapon thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. 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 and therefore considered his discharge proper and equitable. 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 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00958

    Original file (ND01-00958.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00958 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010728, 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).The applicant’s issues 1 and 2 request the Board consider the applicant’s entire service record and positive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00606

    Original file (ND03-00606.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I am a much more responsible person and to be a part of the Army (to get that second chance) would be an honor.” Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative, the American Legion:1. section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00047

    Original file (ND02-00047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00625

    Original file (ND00-00625.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00625 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000417, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The applicant must petition the Board of Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to change her reenlistment code issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01084

    Original file (ND04-01084.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.C. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00682

    Original file (ND00-00682.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 850710 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00152

    Original file (ND01-00152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00152 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001116, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00285

    Original file (ND00-00285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I served my country during Operation Desert Storm proudly for 3 years, 11 months & 3 days. 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, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00506

    Original file (ND01-00506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00506 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.950523: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault on 950521. 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01241

    Original file (ND03-01241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. 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.