Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01011
Original file (ND04-01011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ATAA, USN
Docket No. ND04-01011

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040608. The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. The Applicant did not list a representative on his DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050118. 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: GENERAL (UNDER 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 on the application:

 “I, A_ A_ G_, respectfully request upgrade of military discharge from general to honorable. Also request new re-enlistment status in order to enlist in National Guard. Thank you for your time and patience.

Sincerely,
(Signed)
A_ A_ G_ (Applicant) ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
         
         None submitted

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950822 - 960630  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960701               Date of Discharge: 980306

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 67

 Highest Rate: ATAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 0.00 (*)             Behavior: 0.00 (*)                OTA: 2.67

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 1

*No marks found in Applicant’s service record.

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980123:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 80 (Attempts) 980102, Date not legible, 980109, Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 121 (Larceny)
 Award: Oral reprimand, forfeiture of $463.65 per month for 2 month(s), restriction to NASNI for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
980306:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged

         Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980306 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization (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 discharge package (D).

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.

When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A General 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 a nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 80, 86, and 121 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. 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, and 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.



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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01367

    Original file (ND04-01367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00834

    Original file (ND03-00834.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00834 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030409. At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500096

    Original file (ND0500096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. There is no requirement for a commanding officer to award a NAVPERS 1070/613 following NJP.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01044

    Original file (ND04-01044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.166 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.The SR is incomplete. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500543

    Original file (ND0500543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00543 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050208. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00371

    Original file (ND04-00371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AR, USN Docket No. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980312 with uncharacterized service for defective enlistment and induction due to failed medical/physical procurement standards (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00121

    Original file (ND00-00121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, I recommended AMSAR (applicant) be separated with a characterization of Other Than Honorable.990126: Commander, Naval Base, Jacksonville directed the applicant's discharge General (under Honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990127 General (under Honorable conditions) for misconduct due to a Pattern of misconduct (A). After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00431

    Original file (ND04-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500671

    Original file (ND0500671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for an upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable Conditions (OTH) Discharge to that of Honorable.The FSM served from July 6, 1995 to December 18, 1998 at which time he was discharged due to a Pattern of Misconduct. This...