Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500317
Original file (ND0500317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-QMSA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00317

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 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 20050214. 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/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “To All Concerning Parties:

The reason for this written correspondence is to seek a proposed change/ up grade in the recorded discharge received.

The primary purpose for obtaining the upgrade is for the benefit of obtaining use of certain benefits allocated before recorded discharge.

Any and all attention to this matter is greatly and tremendously appreciated.

Respectfully,
(signed)
E_ Z. B_ (Applicant)”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
No documentation was submitted by Applicant.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR            880315 - 881023  To Rept Acdu
         Active: USNR              881024 - 911022  HON To enlist USN

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 911023*     Date of Discharge: 930106

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 02 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: QM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (2)             Behavior: 2.70 (2)                OTA: 3.3

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR (2), SASM (2), AFEM, USCGSOSR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

* Reenlistment contract not in service record

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

911023:  Reenlisted onboard USS TAYLOR (FFG 50) for six years.

 920218:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect toward a superior Commissioned Officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction for 28 days and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to E-3 (suspended for 3 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

920218:  Retention Warning from USS TAYLOR (FFG 50): Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 89 Disrespect toward a superior Commissioned Officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
920528:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer or Petty Officer.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

921110:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89 (2 Specs): Disrespect toward a Superior Officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Communicating threat.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

921117:  USS TAYLOR (FFG 50) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO’s NJP of 18 February 1992- Violation of the UCMJ Article 89, CO’s NJP of 28 May 1992- Violation of the UCMJ Article 91, CO’s NJP of 10 November 1992- Violation of the UCMJ Article 89 (2 Specifications) and Violation of the UCMJ Article 134. Applicant notified that if discharge is approved, the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.
921118:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. Applicant did not object to this separation.
921122:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO’s NJP of 18 February 1992, violation of the UCMJ. Article 89, CO’s NJP of 28 May 1992: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, and CO’s NJP of 10 November 1992: Violation of the UCMJ, Articles 89 (2 Specs) and 134. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): “QMSA B_, (Applicant) has been aboard this command for over 31 months and has proven himself to be a fine quartermaster. However, over the last nine months, he has shown growing tendency for insubordinate behavior toward his superior Petty Officers, Chief Petty Officers, and Commissioned Officers. Conduct of this nature is unacceptable in any work place, but especially in the close working environment aboard a Naval Vessel. His continued presence onboard TAYLOR is detrimental to good order and aboard this ship. Recommend classification of discharge as Other Than Honorable.”

921127:  BUPERS 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 19930106 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).

Issue 1: Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. 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. T here is credible evidence in the record to suggest the Applicant’s service was marred by repeated incidents of insubordinate conduct, disrespect, and threats towards his superiors aboard the USS TAYLOR (FFG 50). This misconduct resulted in three separate nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 89, 91, and 134. 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. Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.
The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. 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 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501469

    Original file (ND0501469.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). 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) 19880629 – 19880629 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600480

    Original file (ND0600480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01471

    Original file (ND03-01471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500960

    Original file (ND0500960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.941202: Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty) and 90 (Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500366

    Original file (ND0500366.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 domestic hardship. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00364

    Original file (ND00-00364.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although many mistakes were made during my enlistment from 1988-1991, I feel that overall my time served in the U.S. Navy is deserving of an honorable discharge.In 1989 I attended and completed search and rescue surface swimmer training in San Diego, California. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00417

    Original file (ND02-00417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SA, USN Docket No. ND02-00417 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.911209: Retention Warning from USS DETROIT (AOE 4): Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two Article 15, UCMJ nonjudicial punishments...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00994

    Original file (ND03-00994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT Ex- ND0300994 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01447

    Original file (ND03-01447.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.910416: USS INGRAHAM (FFG 61) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three nonjudicial punishments under the UCMJ within the current enlistment.910416: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00260

    Original file (ND99-00260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any appearance hearing. ]900611: USS STEPHEN W. GROVES (FFG 29) notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a Pattern of Misconduct as evidenced by 26 Aug 89 award of CO’s NJP for violation of Article 86 (2 specs), Unauthorized absence (1 days, 22 hours,...