Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01300
Original file (ND04-01300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENEA, USN
Docket No. ND04-01300

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040816. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 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 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 on the application:

1. “I refused three direct orders, they were all based on taking the anthrax vaccine. I feel that I made an educated decision in regards to my health.”

2. “I was cited for misconduct on my discharge. I feel that my misconduct is a direct result of refusing the anthrax vaccine. My work history, professionalism, evaluations, and letters of commendation show otherwise.”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214, 2 copies
Ltr frm Applicant dtd 040530
Applicant’s resume
21 pages frm Applicant’s service record
Reference frm R_ A_
Reference frm F.A.O. J_ R. M_, jr.
Reference frm T_ W_
Reference frm E_ A_ B_
6 pages of photos
DDG63 POD, 971003
High School Diploma
Copy of RTC emblem
Photo of Division Commander
A 1” binder of anthrax vaccination information, 154 pages

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950630 - 960623  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960624               Date of Discharge: 990609

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: EN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.50 (4)    Behavior: 2.80 (5)                OTA: 2. 82
[Marks extracted from evaluations provided by Applicant]

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR (2), AFEM (2), NUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

990115:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 86, 92, 107 and 134 (conduct bringing discredit upon the armed forces).
Award: Forfeiture of $613 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
990412:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Articles 86, 92, 107 and 134), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

990412:  Applicant rcvd lawful written order to receive anthrax vaccination.

990413:  Applicant refused anthrax vaccination.

990414:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Articles 92 and 113 (misbehavior of a sentinel).
                  Award: RIR, extra duties and restriction for 45 das.

 990414:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
990414:  Applicant advised of 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.
990415:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

990602:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than 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 19990609 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

Issues 1-2. The Applicant contends that his work history, professionalism, evaluations and letters of commendation illustrate that he should get an honorable discharge and that his misconduct was “a direct result of refusing the anthrax vaccine.” 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. 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 two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for 6 violations of the UCMJ. The Applicant violated Articles 86, 92, 107, 113 and 134 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 denied.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to this country. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No impropriety or inequity occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities as examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient 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 II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

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 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 | ND02-00541

    Original file (ND02-00541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00541 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020321, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Statement from Applicant, dated March 7, 2002 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600077

    Original file (ND0600077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant incorporates by reference the copy of the District Court’s Order submitted as supporting 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00748

    Original file (ND00-00748.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990408: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Failure to obey an order, violation of UCMJ Article 117: Provoking speeches or gestures.Award: Forfeiture of $479.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. After review of the applicant’ service record the NDRB found an administrative error in the reason for discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s service record clearly documents the applicant’s misconduct that included two NJP’s with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00118

    Original file (ND01-00118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00118 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001101, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00434

    Original file (ND03-00434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My decision to refuse the anthrax vaccine was not one that I took lightly. 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 issues raised regarding the legality and safety of the Department of Defenses’ (DOD) Anthrax Vaccination program are beyond the purview of the NDRB to address. As this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00327

    Original file (ND03-00327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    000124: Memorandum for the Record (Applicant directed to report to Naval Station Rota immunization clinic to begin the Anthrax vaccination series).Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (On or about 0800, 000125 you failed to report to the Naval Station, Rota Hospital to begin the required Anthrax Vaccination program as ordered by CTRCS P_ R_ in accordance with DoD and Navy policy. (On or about 01300, 000411 you were ordered to begin required Anthrax Vaccination program at the Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00373

    Original file (ND01-00373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Until there is an official change to the current anthrax vaccination policy, the Board cannot grant the applicant relief concerning his issues. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600267

    Original file (ND0600267.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” 000125: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense – refusal to take Anthrax Vaccinations.000125: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01169

    Original file (ND04-01169.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 Halts Anthrax Vaccinations [webpage article] (2 pages) Anthrax Vaccine Is Safe, Is Effective, Says National Academy of Sciences [webpage article] PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 950725 - 960630 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500875

    Original file (ND0500875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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