Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500525
Original file (ND0500525.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00525

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050208. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C Metropolitan area. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.


Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050601. 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)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Because I was young minded at the time. I had some family issues back home that I couldn’t handle. I wasn’t able to focus back into my military career. So that pretty much through my military bearing off. Since I have been home from the Navy I have matured, I have taken care of all my family problems. I have gotten my priorities straight. I have had some problems with the command that I was with that I really truly didn’t like other that the Navy was outstanding, it was and forever will be a wonderful learning experience. I just wish that it could’ve went better than it did. I would like to have the opportunity to go back in to fulfill my dream in serving my country & position my life experience to others.”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     020924 - 021008  COG
         Active: None    

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 021009               Date of Discharge: 040422

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 06 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1.00 (1)             Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1.33

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, OSR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).










 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031219:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation, violation of UCMJ, Article 123: Making, drawing, uttering, check, draft, or order without sufficient funds, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Debt, dishonorably failing to pay, violation of UCMU, Article 107: False official statement.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

040204:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order, violation of UCMJ Article 108: Damaging, destroying or losing military property.
Award: Forfeiture of ½ month pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
040218:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobeying a Petty Officer, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties.
Award: Forfeiture of ½ month pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

 040220:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (ICD-9 Code: 788.36 (enuresis, bedwetting), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 040330:  Commanding Officer, USS SAFEGUARD (ARS-50) notified Bureau of Naval Personnel (PER-832) of Applicant’s recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and convenience of the government.
040406:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service possible general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
040406:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

040422:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged.

Part of the Applicant’s discharge package is missing from the service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20040422 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization by reason of a pattern of misconduct (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. The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to family issues and that he was “young minded." While he may feel that these factors were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

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. A 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 a retention warning for enuresis and 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings, within 3 months, for violations of Articles 91 (disobeying a Petty Officer), 92 (2 specs of failure to obey order or regulation and 1 spec of dereliction in performance of duties), 107 (false official statement), 108 (damaging, destroying, or losing military property), 123 (making, drawing, uttering, check, draft or order without sufficient funds), and 134 (debt, dishonorably failing to pay) of the UCMJ. 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.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Reenlistment policy of the naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.




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. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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 2002 until Present, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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

. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002,

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501464

    Original file (ND0501464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The FSM contends the current discharge is improper because he is a combat veteran; he was discharged before provided any treatment; and that his Command kicked him out when the could not Court Martial him. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600519

    Original file (ND0600519.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 and medical records, 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) 20011003 - 20011114 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01345

    Original file (ND04-01345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01372

    Original file (ND04-01372.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    And got my Discharge. I never wanted out in the first place, but after all that I was ready.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Applicant’s DD Form 214 Fifteen pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990723 - 931004 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00595

    Original file (ND03-00595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00595 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030221. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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’s first issue states: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00871

    Original file (ND04-00871.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 “honorable.” The Applicant requests a documentary record review. Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: Specification: Failure to obey a lawful order issued by the Commanding Officer on 011023. The Applicant contends that he served honorably and was awarded an honorable discharge upon the completion of his two year enlistment.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500496

    Original file (ND0500496.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500875

    Original file (ND0500875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00720

    Original file (ND99-00720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00720 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990503, requested that the characterization of service on the 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).Responding to the applicant’s issue, the Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show...