Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500767
Original file (ND0500767.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND05-00767

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050405. The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge 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 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050811. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“ I have managed to stay out of the penitentiary setting until 2002. I would like the record of my behavioral actions from 1993 to 2002 to base my request upon”.

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS):

“2. After considering the Applicant, we ask you to review the evidence of record and change the discharge as appropriate.”
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)     900522 - 900717 
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900718               Date of Discharge: 930426

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 09         (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (1)             Behavior: 3.10 (2)                OTA: 3 .20 (2)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM w. Bronze star, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 85

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

901121:  Applicant to unauthorized absence, appointed place of duty (night study), 901121.

901204:  NJP violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (unauthorized absence):
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 5 days. No appeal in the record.

921103:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from USS LEAHY (CG-16), as of 1000, 921103.

921103:  Applicant missed ships movement on 921103.

921105:  Applicant returned from unauthorized absence, surrendered, 1355, 921105 (2days).

921123:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from TPU San Diego, CA as of 0730, 921113.

921202:  Applicant returned from unauthorized absence, surrendered, 0715, 921202 (9 days).

921209:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from TPU San Diego, CA, as of 0730, 921209.

930109:  Report of Declaration of Deserter. Applicant declared a deserter on 921209 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0730, 921209 from TPU San Diego, CA.

930127:  Returned from unauthorized absence, surrendered, 0830, 930127 (49 days).

930222:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
         Specification: Unauthorized absence from 921209 until 930127.
Findings to Charge I, guilty.
          Sentence: Confinement for 25 days, forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for 1 month.
         CA action 930302: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

 930314:  Released from confinement and restored to full duty.
930323:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense: Unauthorized absence in excess thirty days.
930323:  Applicant advised of rights and consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
930413:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended a general discharge.

930416:  Commanding Officer recommended to Chief of Naval Personnel. Recommend that Applicant be separated from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, to wit: Unauthorized absence in excess of thirty days (49 days) with a general discharge.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930426 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

 Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. After a thorough review of Applicant’s case the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A under honorable conditions (general) 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. Despite the servicemember’s record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service record was marred by a nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violating the UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence). Subsequently he was found guilty by summary court martial for further violations of Article 86 (unauthorized absence, 49 days). Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence) for a period in excess of 30 days is considered a serious offense. 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 short of that required 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 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. The Applicant did not submit documentation for the board to consider. Based on a lack of sufficient post service factors relief denied.

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), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, 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 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500248

    Original file (ND0500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500971

    Original file (ND0500971.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. I am asking for an upgrade of my discharge, for the fact of improper medical treatment that I received at San Diego naval medical center. The service record documents 725 days of unauthorized absence.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00513

    Original file (ND03-00513.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.921008: SIMA Little Creek notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more punishments under the UCMJ within your current enlistment. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00696

    Original file (MD01-00696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214Letter from Assistant Majority Leader State Representative K___ G___Reference Letter from Marion County States Attorney J___ W. C____ PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None Inactive: USMCR(J) 891212 - 900618 COG Period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00045

    Original file (ND01-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The Board determined these issues are not decisional issues but are statements of fact and require not further comment. The Board determined there is no evidence of racial discrimination in the applicant’s service record, nor did the applicant provide any such documentation to support his allegations.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501561

    Original file (ND0501561.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 Application for Uniformed Service Identification Card DEERS enrollment Supplemental Security Income Notice of Planned Action dtd March 30, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500869

    Original file (ND0500869.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 recommend that BM3 M_ (Applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge by reason of misconduct”.940119: Commanding Officer, TPU, San Diego, CA forwarded to BUPERS, discharge 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500981

    Original file (ND0500981.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests his characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. Applicant did not elect to make a written statement.930527: Commanding Officer USS Comstock (LSD-45) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of convenience of the government due to a personality disorder. In addition, he was medically diagnosed as having a personality disorder that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00383

    Original file (ND02-00383.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00383 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020215, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".The names, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00279

    Original file (ND04-00279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Application for VA Education Benefits (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890906 - 890916 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890917 Date of Discharge: 910924 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 02 00 08 Inactive: None Age at...