Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500095
Original file (ND0500095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

, ex-AMAN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00095

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20041015. 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 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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/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. “I would like to re-enlist. I feel I was wrongly discharged. I know I did wrong and requested to stay in the Navy”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Eleven pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     990716 - 990721  COG
                  USAR             980330 – 980428  COG
         Active: USA                        980429 – 980605  ELS

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990722               Date of Discharge: 030318

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 63

 Highest Rate: AMAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (3)             Behavior: 3.67 (3)                OTA: 3.67

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NER (2), NDSM, AFEM, SSDR, LA, LC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 156

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010918:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle.
         Award: Forfeiture of $653 per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction for 60 days, reduction to AMAN. No indication of appeal in the record.
030227:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 020819 to 030122 (156 days/S).
         Award: Administrative separation. No indication of appeal in the record.
030227:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
030227:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
030304:  Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 20030318 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions for drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle and an extended period of unauthorized absence. Both of these offenses are considered serious offenses 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 is inappropriate. Relief denied.

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’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety is evident 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. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, 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 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01159

    Original file (ND04-01159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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 Applicant did not introduce any decisional issues for the Board’s consideration. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500985

    Original file (ND0500985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 040527: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.040714: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed commission of a serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure, that such misconduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00138

    Original file (ND03-00138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500595

    Original file (ND0500595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION In the Applicant’s case, although the record contains scant evidence of the Applicant’s misconduct, the presumption of regularity permitted the Board to conclude the Navy’s actions in discharging the Applicant were proper and equitable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501294

    Original file (ND0501294.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge 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:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19950415 – 19951112 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19951113...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01335

    Original file (ND03-01335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00442

    Original file (ND04-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 contends, “according to the presiding officer, he gave me a lesser sentence, so that I could return to the fleet and have a chance of making a turn for the better.” The Applicant’s Commanding Officer recommended the Applicant for administrative separation stating, “I recommend his separation from the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500823

    Original file (ND0500823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. For the good of the Naval Service I recommend that he be discharged with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable.”030113: Commander, Naval Surface Group TWO authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600404

    Original file (ND0600404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.040126: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Applicant’s violation of Article 111 of the UCMJ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.040525: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 040525.040527: Applicant from unauthorized...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00910

    Original file (ND03-00910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conduct a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Award: No indication of appeal in the record.000816: Commander, Navy Region Southwest directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by...