Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01426
Original file (ND04-01426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EW3, USN
Docket No. ND04-01426

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040913. The Applicant requests 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 any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050201. 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)/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. “On my DD214 Separation Code #26-has the letters HKQ there-my understanding this is the code for “the commission of a severe infraction” I did not commit any severe military action. Requesting this be changed.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Board of Correction of Naval Records, dated August 24, 2004
Letter from Applicant to the Honorable G_ R. E_, dated July 9, 2004
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Copy of Mailing Envelope addressed to the Honorable G_ R. E_

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     940615 - 940621  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 940622               Date of Discharge: 981224

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 06 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 84

 Highest Rate: EW3
Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (7)             Behavior: 1.85 (7)                OTA: 2.95

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, NAVY”E”, AFEM, NUCR, REM

 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 :

960112:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement, in that EWSN M_, USN, PRECOM UNIT CARNEY, BATH, ME on or about 951204, with intent to deceive, changed his birth date on a DD Form 172 which record was totally false, and was then known by the said EWSN, J_ R. M_, USN to be false.
         Award: Forfeiture of $25.33 pay per day for 7 days, restriction to USS CARNEY for 14 days, extra duty for 14 days, reduction to next inferior pay grade (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

981224:  Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NPC 1910-142 [Extracted from DD Form 214].

NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19981224 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: A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) 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 award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of Article 107 (Making a false statement), which is considered a serious offense under the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable and a change of the separation code are inappropriate. Relief denied.

 Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Relief 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. 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 | 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600729

    Original file (ND0600729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040218 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...

  • 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 | ND04-01035

    Original file (ND04-01035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 . 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501544

    Original file (ND0501544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Some of the Seabees were drunk and picked a fight with me and one of my friends G_ tried to stop it but got involved at the end of the fight because he got hit. 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 | ND04-00814

    Original file (ND04-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990311: 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 recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500158

    Original file (ND0500158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00158 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041101. 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 HONORABLE. In reviewing the Applicant’s statements and service record, the Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01409

    Original file (ND03-01409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01409 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030825. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600164

    Original file (ND0600164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00164 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Instead I was separated from the Navy and given an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500630

    Original file (ND0500630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Discharge Board found: “SVCM admits violation of Artical (sic) 92 member signed PG 13 indicated SVCM new (sic) command policy but commited (sic) actions anyway.” 030717: Commanding Officer, USS RAINER (AOE 7), recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer’s Non-Judicial punishment held on 13 April 2003 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92,...