Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500543
Original file (ND0500543.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-ADAN, USNR (TAR)
Docket No. ND05-00543

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050208. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050908. 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) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION
 Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I am respectfully requesting an up graded discharge to re-enter the U.S. Navy. I’m unmistakably certain that I have grown in all aspects of my life and my desire re-enter the U.S. Navy is still strong. I honestly believe that I would be a valuable asset to the worlds most powerful navy.”

Applicant’s Remarks: “To Whom It May Concern:

         The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request an upgrade to my discharge from General (Under honorable conditions), to Honorable. In retrospect I understand that my behavior while enlisted in the Navy conflicted with my military service obligation. I know for a definite fact that my attitude, spirituality, and way of living have positively improved.
         I also realize that I’ve greatly benefited from the naval teachings that are instilled in me. While working outside of the military-entering a job with courage and staying committed has always been values that I’ve protected and cherished. I honestly believe that the US Navy has my answer towards my career goal. When I was in the Navy my specialty was an aviation machinist (AD). Should I be granted reenlistment into the Navy, I would like to continue to pursue this field of expertise. I’ve kept in my heart the pride and enjoyment that it has been in fulfilling my rate. Please allow me another opportunity to apply my skills into the US Navy, and to honor and bestow my ultimately best possible efforts to our country
         Thank you in advance for you attention to this matter. I look forward to a favorable response.
Sincerely,

[signed] K_ A. S_ (Applicant)”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service)
Character Reference letter from ATC (AW) G_ D_, USN, dated July 27, 2004
Letter from Navy Personnel Command to the Honorable R_ E. A_, Member, United States House of Representatives, dated August 30, 2004 (2 pages)
Letter from the Honorable R_ E. A_, Member, United States House of Representatives, dated August 19, 2004
Letter of participation, Focus On Fathers, J_ W. W_, Case Manager, undated
Proof of Employment, Todays Staffing, R_ M_, dated May 5, 2004

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 981218               Date of Discharge: 001201

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 14
         Inactive: 00 00 21

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 20

 Years Contracted: 8

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: ADAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                           Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None
* Not Available


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

981229:  Commenced active duty for a period of 48 months under the TAR program.

000802:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 000718.
 Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days.

 000802:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 86-absence ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
001110:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit from 001016-001017.
         Award: Reduction to E-2 (suspended x 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

001201:  DD-214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20001201 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). 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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 In the absence of a complete discharge package and service record, the NDRB presumed the Applicant was properly notified, that the separation processing was accomplished in strict accordance with applicable regulations, and that his characterization of service is both proper and equitable. 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 general discharge is warranted for behavior not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. T he Applicant’s service was marred by two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ for unauthorized absences and one retention warning for the same. 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.

 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 Naval service. 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. Examples of documentation that could be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board received and considered all of the Applicant’s submissions, including his letters of recommendation, proof of employment and participation on Focus on the Fathers. However, after careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service. Relief denied.

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. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, 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

Similar Decisions

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500790

    Original file (MD0500790.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00790 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050330. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“Members of the Board, I request that my discharge of (under other than Honorable) be upgraded to RE-3. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01314

    Original file (ND04-01314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I feel if the opportunity to serve again was brought my way, the military would not regret it.” 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01055

    Original file (MD03-01055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not appealed.930927: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:Specification: Unauthorized absence from 0500-0615, 930823 Awarded forfeiture of $456.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 45 days. [Your three NJP’s and recommendation for administrative discharge due to misconduct which was identified as a deficiency in your conduct.] The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500810

    Original file (ND0500810.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation Only the service and medical records was reviewed. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500653

    Original file (ND0500653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00653 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050302. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. I want to reenlist in the Navy.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600072

    Original file (ND0600072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant notified that he has been evaluated as nonamenable to rehabilitation for alcohol dependence due to a violation of rules and regulations of the Naval Alcohol Rehabilitation Center, Jacksonville, Florida, specifically, consuming alcoholic beverages while in treatment. The ADB unanimously recommended separation under honorable conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600018

    Original file (ND0600018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. CM continues to follow.040513: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Therefore, I concur with the Administrative Board and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600121

    Original file (ND0600121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation Only the service was reviewed. 900814: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0730 on 900814.900816: Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 on 900816 (2 days/returned).900816: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (9 specs),Specification 1: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 0900, 11...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00025

    Original file (ND04-00025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). I asked OS1 O_ who directly heard EN1 F_ grant me liberty to please submit a letter to the Captain and to accompany me to Captains mast as a witness. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501486

    Original file (ND0501486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]910401: Report of Medical History: Applicant reported present “health is excellent” and that he is not on medications.910402: Commanding Officer, USS PREBLE recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization...