Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500656
Original file (ND0500656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00656

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050304. 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 20050727. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
"To whom it may concern,

 I am requesting a change of status from Other Than Honorable, to General Discharge. This statement includes events, influences, emotions, and the facts that caused my discharge from the Navy. To give you a better understanding I will begin from the beginning to the end leading up to my discharge.
This part here plays an important role towards my feelings about the discharge. Upon enlisting, the recruiting officer “Chief Z_” stated that I had apply to Parks College and complete Jobs Skills 2010 before they let me go into service. The balance to be financed was four thousand eight hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty-one cents. My mom paid twenty-five hundred and I paid one thousand and seven hundred and fifty dollars. After getting out of the military I paid extra interest on top of this. After completion I was sent to Great Lakes, IL on August11, 1999.
Upon arrival, at boot camp I couldn’t hold down any water during the orientation. I told someone in charge about my problem, and instead of immediately taking me to the emergency room they gave me a lie defector test. Then they had the gall to say I wasn’t sick. Finally another person going through orientation spoke up and said, "She is sick, I’ve seen it.” The ambulance took me to the hospital then. The doctor had me drink eight cups of water after throwing it up the doctor gave me a shot in the buttocks. Instead of them taking me back to the barracks, I walked there with minimal knowledge of where to go. I had someone else that was walking help me.
Another thing happened in camp that initiated my reaction on the ship. There were three people that died inside our building from an airborne brain disease. Later on, they had us take a horse pill for this reason, without any explanation as to what effect it could have on us. I then made a promise to myself, that my health would be top priority. There isn’t much more to say about boot camp except the fact, I obtained an skin disease on my hands.
The Operating Specialists Training School I was at didn’t train for the new Aegis system for my ship. The only thing that could be used was the Navigator table. After completion of school, instead of transferring me to the ship, I worked in the mailroom. The orders to go onto the ship were not going to be until March 2000. One day they received a call that I was to be sent out that same day. I only had thirty to forty-five minutes to be at the airport. There was no time for a taxi so they had a on base vehicle take me there. Everything was shoved in one bag resulting in shampoo and conditioner covering my dress whites.
After finally arriving at my ship, which was departing out to sea that same day, an officer in command said that I couldn’t have Shore-leave, due to the fact that I had a couple of months when school ended, even though I worked for the mail room at school and wasn’t allotted any leave during my military experience. Aboard ship I had to wear my dress whites, which was covered in shampoo and conditioner, and went through orientation. Eventually I got seasick. The hours for my field were longer because of the ship being short staffed. I had to go around carrying a bag, eat crackers, and drink a lot of water
The next day, I consulted the doctor, who gave me motion sickness pills, which didn’t help. The doctor then offered me a shot to help, at first; I refused because of fear of needles. I don’t recall if I took the shot. Day by day my health decorated. Eventually, I decided to sleep instead of work. The Chief of my field threatened to drag me off the top bunk to work. Officer Lieu ant P_ overheard and said, “He is not joking, please come in so your Chief will not bother you anymore.”
For my refusal to work they transferred me by helicopter to an pschological ward. I refused to sign anything, because I will not have drugs or medication dictate my life. The person with me, at the time, said just signs it, which resulted in me refusal again. Instead of taking me back to the ship, they had me set up on shore during the rest of the time the ship was out to sea. When the ship returned I talked to the Captain. He asked me what I wanted; in reply I asked to be transferred to shore duty or in a different branch of the military. He said I would have to wait for three years because the Navy paid for my schooling. I did not mention that I had paid for school to get into the service. He then asked if I would wait three years aboard the ship. My answer was no!
The sentence was three days bread and water in jail, two weeks of loading food aboard the ship, then a discharge of Other Than Honorable, on March 13, 2000. I went through jail, worked for the mess hall (without complaint) and then the day too be discharged arrived. They had me give the clothes I paid for to them. Then P_, T J LTJG did my paperwork process. Due to the ship leaving in an hour to two I had a minimal time to go through my options. My evaluation report was marked below standards on everything. This I had an disagreement with, but the officer told me if I didn’t sign it he would make sure that I went back out to sea, and not let me go. So I signed it then signed the part where I intended to make a statement
A recruit and I were supposed to be discharged earlier, but they waited because the recruit I was with, had an airline ticket for a certain time. After being dropped off at the gates his airline ticket was expired. He had no cash or transportation so I gave him some cash for the cab and airline ticket. His discharge was only medical and I felt that it was inhuman and cruel what they did to him. They were probably upset at us because a week or two prior to this incident they had an officer come aboard and comfort the crew. He said, ‘Raise your hands up if you want to leave this ship.” Everyone there raised their hands upsetting the officer.
The Navy was my first job and all I got out of it was losing my virginity to a PAP smear, disrespect, and witnessing the uncaring attitude to those low in rank. I came in thinking they had honor, courage, and commitment but left realizing they didn’t care what happens to their fellow shipmates. Please consider changing my discharge to a General. I will not request an Honorable later because I believe if it were honorable I would die for nothing.
This statement is true and honest to the best of my knowledge.
         Thank you,
         [signed]
         A_ S_ (AKA J_)"

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant's Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (E1-E6) for period from 000207
through 000311
BUPERS Orders, case of Applicant's transfer from STUCOMBATTRACENLANT to
USS HUE CITY (CG 66)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     990312 - 990810  COG
         Active: None                      

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990811               Date of Discharge: 000313

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 07 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 09                        AFQT: 39

 Highest Rate: OSSR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 1.00 (1)             Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 1 .00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000213:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Applicant's refusal to go to her assigned place of duty, in addition to her disobeying a lawful order). Notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

000214:  Discipline Review Board: Applicant appears at DRB aboard USS HUE CITY (CG 66) due to failure to follow a lawful order by her LPO and LCPO to work under instruction in her rating. Applicant's responses to DRB are vague, inconclusive, and non-committal.

000215:  Medical Evaluation, Psychiatry Clinic, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA: Diagnosis:
AXIS I: Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood
AXIS II: Schizotypal Personal Disorder
AXIS: III: No Diagnosis
AXIS IV: Routine Military/work stressors
Strongly recommend command consider routine administrative separation based on adjustment disorder.
000306:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobeying a lawful order.
         Award: Confinement for 3 days on Bread & Water. No indication of appeal in the record.
000306:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government -- physical or mental condition. Applicant advised that the least favorable characterization of service she may receive is under other than honorable conditions.
000306:  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.

000310:  Commander, Naval Surface Group TWO authorized the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000313:  Evaluation Report & Counseling Record provided on the occasion of the
Applicant's detachment from USS HUE CITY (CG 66). Comments on performance: "Since reporting on board OSSR S_ has displayed flagrant disrespect for her chain of command and shipmates. She refused to participate in CIC watch stations and routine work and failed to complete even one qualification. Seaman Recruit S_ has demonstrated significant immaturity, lack of discipline, and a total disregard for the Navy's Core Values. Her careless attitude and poor work ethic have resulted in her administrative discharge under "Other than Honorable" conditions. She is not recommended for advancement nor retention and -- without a significant improvement on her part -- is destine to fail in any post-Navy undertaking."
000314:  Commanding Officer, USS HUE CITY (CG 66) informed Commander, Naval Personnel Command (PERS 83) of the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: "OSSR S_ has been diagnosed by competent military medical authority to manifest evidence of an adjustment disorder and render her unsuitable for continuing military service. She was found guilty of UCMJ Article 91 Disobeying a Lawful Order at Commanding Officer’s Non-judicial Punishment. She has lost the trust of her fellow shipmates and poses a threat to the mission of our command and to the United States Navy. OSSR Storey was processed immediately for separation from the Naval Service in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-142 and MILPERS-MAN 1910-120, and it is my recommendation that she receive an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000313 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A). 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 (B, C, and D).

The Applicant infers that she was denied due process during her administrative discharge from the Navy. The Applicant's service records clearly show that she was advised of her rights on 20000306 when she was officially notified of her command's intent to administratively separate her. On that same date, in her response to her command's notification, she elected the following:
o        to waive the right to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B;
o        to waive the right to request a hearing before and Administrative Discharge Board, including representation at such a board by qualified counsel; and
o        to waive the right to include written statements in rebuttal to her proposed separation.
 The only right the Applicant elected was the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis of her separation. The evidence of record shows that the Applicant was afforded the appropriate due process during her administrative separation. Further, there is no evidence in the record that the Applicant was not treated equitably by anyone involved in the discharge process. The Applicant is advised that, p er regulation, separation processing of a service member for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense may be initiated when the offense warrants a punitive discharge per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial for the same or closely related offense. Her command's decision to separate her was substantiated by the misconduct documented in her service record, specifically, the awarding of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 20000306 for violation of UCMJ Article 91 Willfully disobeying a petty officer. Accordingly, relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant contends that she was treated unfairly while she was in Navy Recruit Training and while aboard her first command. The Applicant implies that this mistreatment led to an inequitable discharge. The Board recognizes that life in the Navy presents certain hardships and challenges to the men and women who volunteer to serve this country. These hardships and challenges, however, do not excuse a Sailor from accountability for his or her actions. T he Board thoroughly reviewed the Applicant's service records, to include the record of her separation proceedings, to determine if her discharge was equitable. The record shows that the Applicant’s service was marred by a retention warning on 20000213, the appearance before a Discipline Review Board on 20 000214, the award of NJP on 20000306, and an adverse evaluation report on 20000313 which specifically notes her immaturity, lack of discipline, and total disregard for the Navy's Core Values. The record does not contain, nor did t he Applicant provide, any evidence to refute, suggest she was not responsible for, or shown she should not be held accountable for, her misconduct. Both the Applicant's misconduct and her performance/behavior deficiencies outweigh the positive aspects of her military record. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant raises an issue regarding her recruiter's requirement for her to complete a pre-enlistment course at a local college prior to her being accepted into the Navy. The Applicant is advised that the objective of the NDRB's review is to examine the propriety and equity of the Applicant's discharge, not her enlistment. Regardless, the Board did examine this fact to determine its applicability to the Applicant's administrative separation and found it to be inconsequential. The Applicant also raises equity issues regarding the fact the she worked in a mail room for the time between completion of her "A" school and reporting to her first fleet command, and the fact that she was denied leave upon reporting to the USS HUE CITY (CG 66). As with the pre-enlistment issue, the Board examined the facts and found both of these actions to be inconsequential to the Applicant's administrative separation. Additionally, in response to the medical issues raised by the Applicant, the Board reviewed the Applicant's health records and found that the Applicant was diagnosed, on 20000215 by competent medical authority, with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood. After further review, the Board found that the diagnosis did not relieve her of accountability for her actions. Further, the Board found no other medical issues that would mitigate or excuse her misconduct. The Applicant is advised that her conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief on any of these bases is denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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 should 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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation of a post-service nature for the Board to consider.

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 her 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), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .
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. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91 Insubordinate conduct if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

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 | ND0501081

    Original file (ND0501081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01081 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050614. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Captain s_ told me when he decided I should be separated that if I didn’t sign he’ll make my life miserable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600383

    Original file (ND0600383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060104. I already knew that she was getting tired of being alone and that she could not bare it anymore but there was not much I could do at that point in time because I was not near San Diego to help out, I do remember trying to got a hold of the Duty Office back on base at some point to talk to someone about this but no one was there to answer my phone call. He told me that he was sorry again for what...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

    Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501541

    Original file (ND0501541.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). I was given a direct order by my chain of command not to be in contact on or off the ship with N_. I didn’t understand why I was being told what decisions to make regarding my personal life and I quickly rebelled.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00979

    Original file (ND03-00979.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00979 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030513. The next day upon arrival on board I was taken to medical and on the Portsmouth Naval Hospital where I stayed for a week and was given a psychological evaluation contracted for safety and was sent back fit for full duty to my command with the recommendation of alcohol rehabilitation Level 3. The summary of service clearly documents that alcohol rehabilitation failure was the reason the applicant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600436

    Original file (MD0600436.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At that point in time, I didn’t know it was against Marine Corps Orders to have a person in the back with the gear. I told her what had happened she looked me right in my eyes and said K_ everybody knows you’re a slut.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00841

    Original file (ND02-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00841 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was told by navy legal office on Guam that an admin board was to be pick at random, but the Capt pick the board himself, I was also told that one member of my board was suppose to be from another command so as to be impartial this was not done everyone on my board was from my command. The possibility that one of his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500253

    Original file (ND0500253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Sentence: Forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, reduced to E-1.CA action 030306: Sentence approved and ordered executed.030420: Review of Summary court-martial: SJA recommends approval of charge I and the specification thereunder, disapproval of charge II and the specifications thereunder, but approval of the lesser included offense of missing...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500239

    Original file (ND0500239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00239 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041117. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.The SR is incomplete.