Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500109
Original file (ND0500109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00109

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20041020. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 20050107. 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/Separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “I am and always will be a veteran of a foreign war 9 months in the middle east Bahrain, Saudi Arabia Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. I have a serious rash that has just gone just from my hands and face to arms, legs, back and chest. The VA hospital in Birmingham says I’m not eligible to be looked at or treated because of my discharge. My remarks and evals while I was there were outstanding. What happened to me when I returned stateside I apologize for, please upgrade my discharge so that I may acquire medical attention and VA benefits. Thank you.”
On DD Form 293 the Applicant marked the box, “I have listed additional issues as an attachment to this application” but none were found.
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)     890825 - 890831  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890901               Date of Discharge: 911209

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 38

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (1)             Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 3.30

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 50

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900620:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs):
 Spec 1: Without authority absent himself from his unit and did remain so absent from 900524 to 900525.
Spec 2: Without authority absent himself from his unit and did remain so absent from 0630 900601 to 0745 900607.
Spec 3: Without authority absent himself from his unit and did remain so absent from 0715 900608 to 0915 900620.
Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

 910603:  Applicant to UA.

910702:  Applicant from UA.

 910913:  Applicant’s UA from 910603 to 910702 unexcused, charged 30 days lost time.
Discharge package not contained in service record book.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19911209 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial (A & B). 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 (C and D). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).

Issue 1. Using the presumption or regularity, t he Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense for which he was charged fully explained by counsel, that he was guilty of the offense and that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions. 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.

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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Article 86 of the UCMJ. The Applicant also had a 30-day period of unauthorized absence, which was not adjudicated. 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 is not warranted.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days, upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

 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 .

 E. 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 | ND03-01142

    Original file (ND03-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01142 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030618. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 910511: Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at 1920, 910511 and returned to military control 1953, 910511 (292 days/apprehended).910702: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00995

    Original file (ND99-00995.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 (D and E).In response to applicant’s issue 1, a medical diagnosis on active duty or during post-service, and whether proper or improper, is not an issue upon which this Board can grant relief. The applicant

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500537

    Original file (ND0500537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As such, the Board reviewed the Applicant's military records to determine if his discharge from service was proper and equitable and, thus, upgrade to his characterization of service warranted. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01102

    Original file (ND99-01102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01102 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990812, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I'll see you around motherfucker" or words to that effect towards Hospital Second Class M____ A. A_______, U.S.Navy.pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. 970917: The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500432

    Original file (ND0500432.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00432 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050112. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 030905: Applicant to unauthorized absence 2359, 030905.031118: Applicant apprehended by civilian authorities at 0155, 031105 for unauthorized absence and returned to military control 1130, 031118 (61 days/apprehended).031120: Court-Martial charges preferred...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00689

    Original file (ND99-00689.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00689 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990426, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Issues I respectfully request that you review my records and upgrade my Other Than Honorable Discharge to Honorable.I truly believe that my discharge was entirely unfair to my family, the Navy, and me. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00579

    Original file (ND04-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00579 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 86: Did on or about 910826, without...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01132

    Original file (ND03-01132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01132 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030617. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 950610: Applicant reenlisted for 6 years.001108: Charges preferred to general court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 134.010130: Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00280

    Original file (ND01-00280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-ABFC, USN Docket No. ND01-00280 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010109, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00693

    Original file (ND00-00693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00693 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000508, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. haracter references educational achievements post service letters will follow.” The Board never received any additional information from the applicant, therefore no relief is granted based on this issue.In the applicant’s issue 3,...