Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500743
Original file (ND0500743.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RM3, USN
Docket No. ND05-00743

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050321. The Applicant requests the 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation from the American Legion.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050819. 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)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I signed up for the Montgomery G.I. Bill during my first enlistment. Since I do not have an Honorable discharge on my 2 nd enlistment I was told I could not receive the tuition assistance (G.I. Bill).”

 Representative submitted no issues.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s service record documents (8 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19910329 - 19910804               COG
         Active: USN                        19910805 - 19950803               HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19950805    Date of Discharge: 19960430

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 08 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: RM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): 3.75
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: National Defense Service Medal, Battle “E” (2 awards), Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Star, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950804:  Applicant reenlisted for 4 years.

 960329:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Miss movement of flight on 960325.
         Award: Forfeiture of $636 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3. Punishment suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
960408:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by all incidents of misconduct during the current enlistment for which a punitive discharge could have been awarded. The Applicant notified that the least favorable characterization of service possible may be under other than honorable conditions.
960409:  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 and to submit a statement.
960410:  Commanding Officer, Transient Personnel Unit, San Diego, recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: (verbatim): I recommend RM3 H_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with a general discharge. After NJP on 29 MAR 26, I directed that she receive counseling at Family Advocacy for a professional analysis of her domestic situation. Although the FAP counselor recommended counseling, it was clear that RM3 H_ (Applicant) was not amenable to it, and that retention in the service could result in an escalation of domestic disharmony, rendering her unproductive. I therefore find that separation is the only viable option in this case.

960419:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19960430 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and 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).

 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of Article 87 of the UCMJ for missing movement. The Applicant missed the movement of flight MCO3 to Yokota Air Base, Japan. Under applicable regulations, a violation of UCMJ Article 87 is considered a serious offense. The Applicant’s 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. 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 her 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. 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), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 87, missing movement, if adjudged at a Special or General Court-Martial.

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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00931

    Original file (ND04-00931.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 We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the Applicant's discharge be reviewed for an upgraded discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Ltr from Member...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500721

    Original file (ND0500721.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. Decision, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, the board found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense and does have a personality disorder, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions). There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant missed ship’s movement, through...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01238

    Original file (ND99-01238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I also submit to you another issue, that at the time all this was going on with my grandfather dying I was going through a divorce an was stressed when I was out at sea. I am asking that I be considered for a general discharge for reasons being that I have served in the navy honorably for 2 years and 9 months without prior non-judicial punishment. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01010

    Original file (ND01-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking the Review Board with all due respect to review my discharge for a possible upgrade. Respectfully C_ L. H_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Trident Technical College ltr (Part-Time Students' Dean's List) of Feb 27, 2001Letter of Employment, Coburg Diary, dtd Mar 5, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600666

    Original file (ND0600666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and/or the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “ HARDSHIP MEDICAL REASON.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Inactive: None Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 2 days Confinement: None Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 (12-month extension) Education Level: 12 AFQT: 39 Highest Rate: SHSA Final Enlisted...

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01168

    Original file (ND99-01168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. After four years of my discharge, I am asking for my honorable discharge. The NDRB found the applicant’s issue non decisional.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00284

    Original file (ND00-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Bill, the applicant would need not only an Honorable discharge but also 36 months of active service to receive benefits. The applicant is reminded that she is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00673

    Original file (ND99-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00673 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990416, requested that the characterization of service on the 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:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 891220 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00814

    Original file (ND00-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.931022: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 0700, 931006 thru 1200 931011, violation of UCMJ Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 0730 931019 thru 1415 931020, violation of UCMJ Article 87: Missing ship's movement on or about 931008, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order by absenting himself from appointed place of duty. 940218: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance...