Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01035
Original file (ND04-01035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND04-01035

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040616. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE-1.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area . In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by a civilian counsel.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041222. 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 and reason for the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION



 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “Request change to honorable and RE code error to RE-1, Want to Re enlist to serve the Country. Request RE code to RE to reenlist as wrongfully discharged with error Code was told could re enlist, also reserves”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 1) (2 copies)
Letter from Applicant to Mrs. R_, dated October 12, 2004
 Letter of recommendation from HTCM (AW/SW) L_ M_, dated November 15, 2000
 Letter of formal inquiry into Equal Opportunity Complaint Case, submitted by LCDR J_ R_ W_, undated.
Notification, Review and Follow-up, dated September 19, 2000
 Complaint Process form, dated July 17, 2000
American Online email message, dated November 21, 2000 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     990629 - 990706  COG
          Active: None    

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990707               Date of Discharge: 010105
Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 01 05 29
          Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 33                          Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 16                        AFQT: 57

 Highest Rate: PNSN
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.67 (3)    Behavior: 2.33 (3)                OTA: 2.45
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None
Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000808:  Applicant filed a grievance and EO report against a YNC.
          [Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents.]
         
Undated:         Formal Inquiry into Equal Opportunity complaint case of PNSN R_ B_ (Applicant) against YNC (AW/SW) G_ M_: After review, it is believed Applicant has some basis for charges of harassment and discrimination against YNC (AW/SW) G_ M_. The witnesses directly involved with the case and spouse of PNSN B_ (Applicant) could corroborate PNSN B_ (Applicant) allegations, witness indirectly involved were able to present some evidence implying discrimination and harassment to some extent. LCDR J_ R_ W_, feels a reassignment would be extremely beneficial for him, and would also allow him the opportunity to properly care for his children with his spouse in Great Lakes. Personal records of both PNSN B_ (Applicant) and his spouse weren’t made available to me as per my request reason given they could not be found as command was getting ready for deployment.
 Recommendation: PNSN B_ (Applicant) seems to be a intelligent, well groomed and well mannered member and would be an asset to the Navy.
          [Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents]
000821:  Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for period 00MAR01 to 00JUL15 states: PNSN B_’s conduct has been well below standards. He has been counseled on numerous occasions regarding his argumentative nature towards supervisors as well as peers.
010105:  Applicant's discharge with general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense per MILPERSMAN 1910-142. [Extracted from Applicant’s DD Form-214]
NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20010105 with a general (under honorable conditions) for 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 has provided no evidence to support his claim that his discharge was carried out contrary to Navy regulations and therefore does not refute the presumption of regularity of government affairs. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) 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 commission of a serious offense. 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 actions. 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.

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, dated 7 Nov 00, 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 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

 C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .
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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501240

    Original file (ND0501240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On December 8, 2002, the Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records denied relief to PNSN B_(Applicant) request dated March 25, 2002. In addition on June 6, 2004 PNSN B_(Applicant) submits to the Naval Council of Personnel Records, Naval Discharge Review Board an application for discharge review. In response to Violation of UCMJ Article 87 (Missing Ships Movement), PNSN B_(Applicant) had in receipt Temporary Additional Duty orders (TAB H) to report to Commanding Officer,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01499

    Original file (ND03-01499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I request that all recommendations be overturned & new determinations of fact finding be made and Board Action change my discharge to an Honorable.”Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS): Based upon the details of the Applicant’s offenses and in consideration of the Applicant’s rank, record of service, and all documentation available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00254

    Original file (ND04-00254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 020419: 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 by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501044

    Original file (ND0501044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD NOT LONGER SEE HER DURING CAPTAIN’S MAST AND A SUSPENDED BUST FOR 6 MONTHS AND FINED $1,000 FOR 2 MONTHS. Furthermore, both B_ E_ and her father verified the ongoing relationship in their statements and J_ A_ O_ provided 2 additional statements documenting the ongoing relationship between the Applicant and the lady whom he was ordered to stop seeing.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00087

    Original file (ND03-00087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a record review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Though Navy regulations only permit conditional waivers for General discharges not Honorable discharges, BM2 M_'s (Applicant) designated military lawyer did not know this and provided erroneous advice to BM2 M_ (Applicant). Navy regulations required that for misconduct to be a serious offense it must be an offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00481

    Original file (ND03-00481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of 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:Letter from Applicant, dated January 9, 2003 Fifty-six pages from Applicant’s service record Letter to United States Senator from Board for Correction of Naval Records, dated August 29, 2002 DD Form 149 Letter to Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00535

    Original file (ND02-00535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, she was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The received general discharge is improper and inequitable because the applicant's service record reflects her honorable service in the U.S. Navy. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600165

    Original file (ND0600165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. After returning from treatment, the member states she did not gamble at all for nearly 9 months, and then in July 01, she began to gamble excessively again. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500641

    Original file (ND0500641.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Award: Restriction and extra duty for 15 days.971024: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Commanding Officers NJP held on 23 October 1997 for violation UCMJ Article 86 – Unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.971211: NJP for...