Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01299
Original file (ND04-01299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND04-01299

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040819. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation and the reason for the discharge be changed to “mislead by recruiter.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Houston or Galveston, TX. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC area. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050322. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. No impropriety was discovered. The Board’s vote was 3-2 that the character of the discharge shall change and the Board’s vote was unanimous that the reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “My discharge was unfair because I solely relied on information given to me by my recruiter. Trusting in him was what got me in trouble. I had no one else to guide me through the military process & he deceived me. He told me that I would not get in trouble for leaving the airport & swearing in a second time. Being that he was my recruiter I believed everything he told me.”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
6 pages from Applicant’s service record
Copy ltr from RTC to Applicant’s parent’s dtd 990728 with envelope

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     981219 - 990517  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990518               Date of Discharge: 991028

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 11                  [Does not exclude lost time]
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 69

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 108

NMF*-No marks found

 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

 :

990708:  Declaration of Deserter, having been in unauthorized absence since 990518.

990903:  Applicant apprehended Walker Co, TX.

990909:  Applicant turned over to RTC Security.
990909:  Incident /Complaint Report: On or about 2305, 09SEP99, NACIC turned A_ (Applicant) over to RTC security from a UA status. A_ (Applicant) had been UA since 0001, 18MAY99. On or about 2323, 09SEP99 A_ (Applicant) advised of her rights in accordance with Article 31 of the UCMJ. A_ (Applicant) acknowledged her rights and made the following statement: She told her recruiter that she couldn’t join the Navy yet because of family problems, she had to drive her Mother around, pay the bills and take care of brothers. The recruiter came up with the idea to go through the whole process just not board the plane. A_ (Applicant) had nothing further to add to her statement.
990923:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 990518 until apprehended 990903.
         Award: Forfeiture of $207 per month for 1 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
991007:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
991007:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult elected to waive all rights.
991012:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

991021:  CO, NTC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19991028 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper but not equitable (D and E).

Issue 1. The Applicant committed a serious offense by remaining in unauthorized absence for more than 30 days, an offense punishable by punitive discharge. Therefore, her discharge was proper. However, the Board found that the Applicant’s personal obligations mitigated her misconduct, making a discharge characterization of under other than honorable conditions inequitable. Consequently, the Board voted to change the characterization of discharge to general (under honorable conditions). Relief granted.

The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The summary of service clearly documents that commission of a serious offense was the reason the applicant was discharged. The Applicant was in unauthorized absence status for 108 days, a serious offense, and returned as a result of apprehension. Her misconduct is clearly documented. No other narrative reason for discharge could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the narrative reason would be inappropriate. Relief of narrative reason for discharge is not warranted.

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 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. In Appendix 12 of 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. 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.

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

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.


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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00856

    Original file (ND02-00856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was led to believe this by a representative of the United States Military. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from L_ M_, undated Letter from Applicant, unsigned and undatedLetter from a Member of Congress, dated June 19, 2000Letter to Member, U.S. House of Representatives from National Personnel Records Center, dated June 9, 2000 Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00896

    Original file (ND03-00896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. (Equity Issue) This former member opines that personal and family problems sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant recharacterization of his service period to fully honorable.2 (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in...

  • 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500047

    Original file (ND0500047.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I didn’t know whom I could trust for one of the men harassing me was a Chief Petty Officer in my direct chain of command. No indication of appeal in the record.030529: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission...

  • 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00821

    Original file (ND04-00821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. This is why I am requesting an upgrade on my Reentry to the Armed Forces” 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) 010612 - 010719 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01271

    Original file (ND03-01271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149, dated February 16, 2001 Letter of Commendation for December 13-18 1996 Letter of appreciation, dated February 6, 1998 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...