Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500240
Original file (ND0500240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MM3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00240

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20041129. 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 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 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/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 went AWOL due to my problems at Home my father was Hitting my mother. He drank a lot. He Hit my little Brother as well. I didn’t know what else to due and was ashamed to ask for Help. Im older now. He has sought help with the VA. And is getting better. They say he has postwar syndrome. I regret the day I got out of the navy I enjoyed it but my Family had to come First. Im hoping my discharge can be upgraded so I can join the national guard and help Finish what we started in 1991. I Relize I made a mistake but everyone does at some point in there life. Im just hoping I can help redeem my mistakes and join the Reserves and finish what I Started I served 3½ years out of 6. I would like to Finish what I started. In the reserves or active duty in any Branch that needs the help. While I was in the service I did my Job and kept my nose clean. But no matter what your decision my Best wishes to out to those serving our country. Thank you For at least Listening. To what I had to say.”
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)     910430 - 910528  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910529               Date of Discharge: 950811

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 14 (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 59

 Highest Rate: MM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.15 (4)             Behavior: 3.10 (4)                OTA: 3.05

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NER (2), SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 299

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940524:  To UA at 0645.

940624:  Missed movement of USS FLINT (AE 32).

940805:  Apprehended and returned to military control at 1645.

941101:  To UA at 0715.

950614:  Apprehended at 2200.

 950710:  Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of the charge preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 941101 to 950614. The Applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel received. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

950802:  The Commanding Officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19950811 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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 and equitable (D and E).

 Issue 1. On 19950710, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of the charge preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 941101 to 950614. The Applicant was also UA for 73 days on another occasion during which he missed the movement of his ship. 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.
Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 2 Oct 96, 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 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500294

    Original file (ND0500294.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00294 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00904

    Original file (ND03-00904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00904 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. During the time I was UA, I was working and never did I get into trouble. Other reason: My acting LPO at the time MM1 D___ and my assaulterMM3 B___ were good friends.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00950

    Original file (ND04-00950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00950 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040526. Thank you for reviewing and considering my application The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01040

    Original file (ND02-01040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020722, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Pastor K_ F_ Copies of DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00024

    Original file (ND04-00024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00024 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031001. I did not want discharged. Please allow me the chance to correct my wrong doings, and serve my country in it’s time of need.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500112

    Original file (ND0500112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Now currently disabled can’t support my family unless discharge is upgraded to allow me to receive the proper benefits and help I deserve.”The Applicant’s representative submitted no issues. 950619: Report of Return of Deserter: Applicant apprehended by military authorities at 0930, 950614, (119 days) at Salisbury, North Carolina.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00361

    Original file (ND00-00361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00361 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to General/under Honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01109

    Original file (ND02-01109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01109 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020801, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief denied.The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB). Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00500

    Original file (ND00-00500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00500 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I just wanted to be able to pursue my dream of becoming a police officer and to help society in helping keep law and order and peace in our country. 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 Council of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00659

    Original file (ND04-00659.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00659 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040311. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reentry code changed so that he may reenlist. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.