Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00855
Original file (ND04-00855.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-YNSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-00855

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040428. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or 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 20050118. After a thorough review of the available 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/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated:

 1. “To whom it may concern:

The purpose of this letter is to upgrade my discharge from other than honorable to possibly re-enter the United States Armed Forces. Service member was discharged on 04 June 2002 for the following reason: Misconduct.

Around early September 2001, Subject Name Member (SNM) L_ V_ S_ ( Applicant ) was stationed on board the USS John L.Hall (FF0 32) in Pascagoula, MS. During this period the ship was schedule for a two and one half week deployment cruise to Norfolk, VA for weapons unload. Well one particular morning in September 2001, SNM had just arrived at Naval Station Pascagoula, when SNM received a phone call from SNM’s spouse in which she was sounding extremely upset. After receiving the phone call, SNM went to the pier of the USS John L. Hall (FF0 32) where he then told PC1 M_ he had a family emergency and had to return home, but would return before ship departure at 0900. Well approximately around 0830, SNM tried to make several attempts to contact the ship, but was unsuccessful. SMN assumed the ship departed earlier than expected and SNM missed ship’s movement. So SNM then went the Commander Destroyer Squadron SIX where SNM then explain the situation to YNC D_ who then notified the ship about my situation. The Executive Officer of SNM’s ship then advised SNM to remain in Pascagoula, MS and wait for ship’s arrival.

On the day of the ship’s arrival, SNM was given three different times for ships arrival and actually missed the arrival due to having limited transportation. Not knowing the severity of the situation, SNM was approximately 45 minutes UA for the ship’s arrival. Upon arriving onboard the ship, SNM spoke with HTC L_ and explain this same situation to him. From the conversation, SNM was under the impression the situation was resolved.

Well a couple of days later, SNM was called down to the Master at Arms headquarters where then a Report Counseling Chit was issued. Being clueless to the entire situation SNM then explained the situation again and SNM was advised that SNM had to go to XOI. From XOI, SNM was then sent to Captain’s mast where SNM then explain the situation to the captain. Being this was SNM’s first time being on board a ship during my military career, SNM explain to my command as well as my captain that SNM truly felt my behavior and actions during this time period was appropriate. SNM then received a punishment of 30 day restriction and 30 day extra duty and a forfeiture of one and one half months pay for two months with a suspended bust for six months.

On 1 November 2001, the day SNM actually received my NJP, SNM went UA due to the fact SNM was in the process of submitting an LDO package for the Officer program. By receiving NJP, this destroyed any possible chances of making LDO for the next few years. SNM had set extremely high goals for his military career and the NJP that was awarded, basically destroyed them.

During that time period, SNM apologizes for attending to the needs of SNM family’s well being over SNM military commitment. Not thinking about the consequences at the time, SNM would have never imagined that SNM life would be in so much turmoil as it appears. SNM is embarrassed for SNM’s family, and for not completing SNM’s military career as obligated. SNM is deeply sorry for all the extra manpower hours SNM wasted for SNM’s immature behavior, therefore, SNM is asking for an upgrade to possibly serve my country once again especially during this war time situation in which SNM truly misses!”

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)     931113 - 940123  COG
          Active: USN                        940124 - 971113  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 971114               Date of Discharge: 020604

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 04 06 23
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 54
Highest Rate: YN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.33 (6)             Behavior: 2.83 (6)                OTA: 3.11

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR (3), GCM, HSM, B’E’R (2), MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 174
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

011102:  NJP for violations of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized Absence from unit 010928 to 011002. Article 87: Miss ship’s movement on 010928. Article 91: Disobeying warrant, noncommissioned or petty officer. Article 90: Willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer.
         Award: 30 das restriction, 45 das extra duty and RIR. RIR susp 6 mos.

 Undated:         Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violations of Articles 86, 91 and 90), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

011102:  Applicant to UA. [Extracted from DD 214]
020417:  Applicant from desertion. [168 das/S]

 020528:  Commander, Naval Surface Group Two directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

Parts of Applicant’s discharge package not available in service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20020604 under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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. 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 87, 90 and 91 of the UCMJ. In addition, the Applicant had an unauthorized absence period of 168 days following his NJP. 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.

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his "attending to his family’s needs." While he may feel that his family responsibilities were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .
D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, 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 “ http://Boards.law.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:
                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00957

    Original file (ND99-00957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00957 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. At the conclusion of the second Commanding Officer's punishment proceedings I was told I would be discharged from the Navy with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions. However, after the fact, when I reviewed my discharge papers, I discovered that I had in fact received an other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00305

    Original file (ND00-00305.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Navy had changed my life so much for the better. Award: Correctional custody for 30 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 (C and D).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that “what had happened was an extreme abuse of power on the Captain’s part.” The applicant only served for one year and 5 months...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501027

    Original file (ND0501027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050601. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). During my absence (AWOL), a new Captain took over the “US S Fresno (LST-1182).” The old Captain was aware of the situation and he left no information or instruction to the new Captain as to what was going on in the ship’s office.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00551

    Original file (ND04-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.990330: Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.PARTIAL DISCHARGE PACKAGE PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990405 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00341

    Original file (ND03-00341.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The first indication that SR A_ (Applicant) had actually gotten married was when the command was notified of his problems with an auto-rental agency. SR A_ (Applicant) stated that the next day his sister took him to the airport and was in an accident on her return so he returned home again.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00933

    Original file (ND04-00933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00933 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040518. I tried my best to be the man the Navy wanted but because of my medical problems which began with a fractured wrist the very first week on a ship. Appeal denied 990402.No Discharge Package PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990402 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01365

    Original file (ND97-01365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no indication of an appeal in the record.960506: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer on 960415; Article 91, disrespect toward a third class petty officer on 950929; Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01098

    Original file (ND99-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.920717: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence for 2 days, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order. 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. The applicant’s Commanding Officer was within his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01323

    Original file (ND02-01323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01323 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to RE-3D Failure to Meet Disciplinary Standards. The Duty Officer told the Duty Chief that I was sick and would not be coming to Dink Study that night. So later on that night I asked him again and STS1 S_ stated, "I don't feel qualified to give you a walkthrough."

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00723

    Original file (ND00-00723.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt states he was diagnosed as an alcoholic but not documentation in health record. Pt was told to come find me at any time if situation became too stressful. 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 the applicant’s issue 1, a member does not have to be “charged with a crime” or have a court martial or NJP to be administratively separated...