Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501173
Original file (ND0501173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENS, USNR
Docket No. ND05-01173

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050708. The Applicant requests the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. 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 20060316. 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 reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Honorable by reason of substandard performance of duty.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter:

“My Separation Code is unjust due to the fact that it does not properly describe my performance and it is based off of unsubstantiated and erroneous information.

 1. I respectfully request to have my separation code changed from “LMN” - substandard performance, to a general code that will allow me to be reappointed to the Naval Reserves. I have always held myself to the highest standards of duty, integrity, and professionalism. I have taken great pride in my service to my country and I strongly desire the opportunity to continue service in the Naval Reserves.

2. My performance has never been “substandard”. In fact, despite the fact that I was the most junior officer, I was the closest of all junior officers to receiving my SWO qualification. I had already completed Surface Warfare PQS and was considered by the CO and the Senior Watch Officer to be one of the most competent watch standers. I was further used by the Senior Watch Officer to train incoming junior officers in obtaining their SWO qualifications.

3. In reference (a), CDR G_ makes several unsubstantiated claims. He states that I was relieved for cause. In fact, no cause was ever officially cited in my record or my Fitness Report. He also mentions that I was brought to Captain’s Mast, which also never officially took place. I was erroneously charged with Missing Ship’s Movement, but in the subsequent investigation, PHIBRON 3 determined that I acted appropriately. This is why no formal charges of Missing Ship’s Movement were ever filed.

4. I was the 3M Officer when ATG reinstated their 3M inspections. Under my direct supervision, USS DULUTH not only passed the inspection, she set the record as the best maintained ship on the West Coast. DULUTH XO, LCDR M_ F_ stated for the record that I was the primary reason that she passed the inspection.

5. CDR G_ improperly based my “substandard performance” on a NJP that never took place. Due to this fact and the evidence presented, I respectfully request that the Board find that I performed at or above the “standard” and change my Separation Code to reflect this.

6. The Administrative Separation that blocked my promotion to LTjg was based upon a false premise and was subsequently dismissed. I respectfully request that I be retroactively promoted to LTjg.

M_ R_(Applicant) ”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from S. A. M_, LT, USN, dtd March 7, 2005
Letter to Board for Correction of Naval Records from S. F. U_, LT, USN, dtd March 17, 2005 (3 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (NROTC)   19980902 - 20010510      Commission

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission: 20010511             Date of Discharge: 20040113

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 08 02
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 22

 Years Contracted: Indefinite

 Education Level: 16                                 Degree: Bachelor of Arts

 Highest Grade: Ensign

 Final Officer’s Performance Evaluation Averages: P erformance reports were available to the Board for review

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon


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

HONORABLE/substandard performance of duty, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6B.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010511:  Applicant accepted commission in the USNR.
020930:  Fitness Report and Counseling Record Comments: Ensign R_’s (Applicant) performance has steadily declined over this reporting period and is currently unsatisfactory. Due to misconduct and unprofessional behavior, I re-assigned him from a line division officer billet to adhoc billet under the direct supervision of the Executive Officer. He has spent the majority of this reporting period attempting to escape his responsibilities and scheming to get out of his obligated service.
         -Assisted in the command-wide 3M Assessment preparations. Organized the Schedule of Events and constructed the self-assessment binders for the inspectors.
         -An MWR Custodian, he has maintained perfect accountability of the command’s MWR funds.
         -Has made unsatisfactory progress towards his watchstanding and warfare qualifications. His failure to gain my trust and confidence has led to his removal from the underway watchbill. He is currently not assigned to any meaningful watchstation.
 Ensign R_ has demonstrated to be an individual of questionable integrity and to be more interested in ill gotten gains than the goals of the command or Navy’s. He has clearly shown and expressed no potential to be an effective officer. He is not recommended for advancement or retention.
031001:  Applicant’s rebuttal statement to Fitness Report of 020930.

030221:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for separation by reason of substandard performance of duty; specifically, failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade, failure to achieve or maintain acceptable standards of proficiency required of an officer of his grade, and failure to discharge the duties expected of an officer of his grade. Applicant notified that the recommended characterization of service is Honorable.

030429:  Applicant acknowledged his rights, elected not to tender his resignation and desired to submit a statement.

030509:  Applicant’s promotion to Lieutenant, Junior Grade, was delayed due to pending administrative separation processing.

030515:  Applicant’s reply statement to notification of administrative separation.
030528:  Applicant submitted a qualified letter of resignation. Applicant acknowledged that if accepted, he would receive an Honorable discharge.
030624:  Commander, Amphibious Group THREE recommended to Commander, Naval Personnel Command that Applicant’s qualified resignation request be accepted and that he be separated with an Honorable discharge.
030804:  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.
031031:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved recommendation for honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.

040113:  DD-214: Applicant discharged with an Honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty.
The Service Record was missing elements of the Administrative Discharge Package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20040113 by reason of substandard performance of duty (A) with a service characterization of honorable. 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).

 The Applicant was separated by reason of substandard performance of duty with an Honorable discharge. The Applicant was properly notified of administrative separation processing by reason of substandard performance of duty. The Show Cause Authority reviewed the Applicant’s case and determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the Applicant’s separation from the Naval service. Based upon this notification, the Applicant submitted a qualified resignation request for his separation from the Naval service. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs accepted this resignation request on 20031031. Subsequently, the Applicant was discharged with an Honorable discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

The Applicant contends that his Narrative Reason for Separation should be changed because it does not properly describe his performance and it based on unsubstantiated and erroneous information. In support of his position, the Applicant has submitted several letters from fellow officers that support his contentions. After a careful review of the Applicant’s submissions along with the evidence of record, the NDRB concluded that relief is not warranted. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption permits the Board to presume that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the Applicant’s Naval service and subsequent administrative processing. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. Although the Applicant has presented evidence to suggest an improper motive on the part of his commanding officer, the Board concluded that such evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in this case. 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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 13 Dec 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30. 14 Mar 97.

 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, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .

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 | 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 | ND0501051

    Original file (ND0501051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950414: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Secretary of the Navy approval of Applicant’s qualified resignation request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in lieu of further administrative show cause proceedings. When the service of an officer of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. The record documents that this resignation request followed the Chief of Naval Personnel’s...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500419

    Original file (MD0500419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By unanimous vote, the BOI recommended that that Applicant be separated from the naval service for the reasons listed above and the service be characterized as other than honorable.020211: Applicant’s request denied. 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 and C).The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because the Board of Inquiry (BOI), which...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600912

    Original file (ND0600912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Decisional Issues Equity: Discharge and characterization of service not warranted by service record Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s service records on CD E-mail from Applicant to CDR D_, dated December 8,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00080

    Original file (ND02-00080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910814: CO, NAVHOSP Portsmouth, reported Applicant's NJP to BUPERS.910719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91 and the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.910722: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600225

    Original file (MD0600225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The incident that occurred on 1 Sep 01 was the one and only time that I have broken the law. 031028: Commandant of the Marine Corps (//s// Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs) forwards Report of Nonjudicial Punishment to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) for review and final action, recommending approval of Captain M_’s (Applicant) qualified resignation request and that his service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501022

    Original file (ND0501022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the recommendation of LT E_ is supported by myself to separate this individual for an Adjustment Disorder. I based my decision to separate the member from Naval Service on the recommendation from the evaluating doctor. He was separated by reason of personality disorder.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700249

    Original file (ND0700249.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge VI: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (15 Specs) Specification 1: Solicited AO2 V_ to wrongfully wear NMCAM Medal. 20030131: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. The Board did so.]

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501505

    Original file (ND0501505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]010122: Applicant’s statement.010123: Commanding Officer, Helicopter Combat Support Squadron EIGHT recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. Therefore it is my decision to separate AR F_(Applicant) from the naval service by reason of Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense, and that his characterization of discharge is General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Applicant requests an upgrade because his...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501120

    Original file (MD0501120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This letter and supporting documentation is my personal request for a review of my discharge issued by the United States Marine Corps, though the Secretary of the Navy, on 15 October 2003. While 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...