Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501209
Original file (ND0501209.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HR, USN
Docket No. ND05-01209

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050712. 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 20060302. 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 and reason for 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 want an upgrade from a general discharge to an honorable discharge. I feel the decesion to be separated was unjust and not equivalent to the offenses. I would like to return active duty status

 To the Discharge Review Board,

I am requesting a review into my discharge from the U.S. Navy. I feel it was a wrongful separation, and I want to attempt to be reinstated. If being directly reinstated into the Navy is not possible, I would like an upgrade in the characterization of my discharge, and reenlistment code. I would someday like to come back into the Navy to make it a career, or finish my time to be served. I had in mind a direction I wanted to take while in the Navy. I feel that with some time I could’ve done something very positive for myself. I wanted to start and finish my college credits while enlisted, and apply for and officers program to become a JAG officer. Before my separation, I had taken a positive step in this direction by enrolling into English Composition 101. Unfortunately, I had to take my name off the roster because of my separation process before I could even start. I am stating this in my letter because I want it to be known that I had goals, and I had a sense of direction.

My first and only duty station was Naval Hospital Bremerton, WA where I worked as a Hospital Corpsman on a Medical/Surgical ward. I was known for being a good Hospital Corpsman with much potential. I was in the Navy almost two years. Since my enlistment into the Navy, I have been to three Captains Mast. One was towards the very end of school where I received my training to be a Hospital Corpsman. The other two were at Naval Hospital Bremerton. None of which were serious in offense, and were minor. I have not done drugs, had any DUI’s, or committed any crimes. I am a good person who had a sincere heart to want to do well in the Navy. I don’t feel that my separation was a just decision. I don’t believe I was given a chance to show I could make it.

After completing my designated time on my ward, I was never given an opportunity to transfer to another department of the hospital. I had been in trouble once before while assigned to this department, and I felt a stigma was attached to me. I think the situation I was put in was and eventual trap. I was very disappointed because none of my supervisors spoke up for me in a positive way to bring about the question whether I should be given another chance. I was separated from the Navy at my first and only duty station, and having been in only one department during my tour at the hospital. I was never given a fair chance to see if I could succeed in another part of the hospital. A lot of the time the ward wasn’t a very positive place to work. I admit that I made some mistakes, but I didn’t feel that being separated was the ultimate answer in my case.

I believe I could’ve turned all this around with time, and done something positive for myself. Naval Review Board, I am asking you to please review my case with great consideration. I ask you to look at my Captains Mast not collectively, but to examine one by one. I don’t feel I fall under a typical case that is brought before the Board. I am not the typical person that gets separated. I cared about my future, and I fought very hard to the end to stay in. I have contacted people in Congress, and the Senate to help me on my behalf. I am putting a very serious effort into being reinstated. I hope you somehow see that this wasn’t the right decision. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. If you have any further questions, or concerns I can be contacted at:

[address, telephone number and email address deleted]
Gratefully,
[signed]
A_ D_ (Applicant) II”
Documentation
In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Post service letter from Applicant, undtd
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd August 8, 2003
Letter of appreciation certificate
Applicant’s grades from West Los Angeles College, dtd May 31, 2005
Employment verification from Lunday-Thagard Company, dtd July 5, 2005
Employment verification letter, undtd
 Post service letter from Applicant, dtd Jan 27 th , 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20020404 - 20020710      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20020711             Date of Discharge: 20040408

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 28
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 61

 Highest Rate: HN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.0 (1)                       Behavior: 2.0 (1)                 OTA : 3.33

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


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 :

030228:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86, 2 specs, abandon the watch, and unauthorized absence.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 92, Fail to obey a lawful order.
         Award: Forfeiture of $575 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. Restriction, extra duty and reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

030228:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency. Violation of UCMJ Article 86, (Unauthorized absence-from watch and absence for appointed place of duty), and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 031022:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 - Two specifications of unauthorized absence.
         Award: Forfeiture of ½ pay per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 30 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 040427.]

040325:  Forfeiture of pay awarded at NJP on 031030 vacated.

040326:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 - Leaving appointed place of duty.
         Specification: In that HA A_ D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Hospital, Bremerton, Washington, on active duty, did, at Naval Hospital, Bremerton, on or about 1130, 24 February 2004, without authority, go from his appointed place of duty, to wit: Multi Service Ward (MS-5) absent himself from his organization, to wit: MS-5 Department, located at Naval Hospital, Bremerton and did remain so absent until on or about 1235, 24 February 2004.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 - Dereliction in the performance of duties.
Specification: In that HA A_ D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Hospital, Bremerton, Washington, on active duty, who knew of his duties at Naval Hospital, Bremerton, on or about 24 February 2004, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to document the appropriate time of two patients vital signs that were taken at approximately 1130 to 1150 (the time of the vital signs were documented as taken at 1300), as it was his duty to do.
          Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

040329:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct.
040329:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and submit a statement.

040401:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Bremerton, WA directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions.

040408:  Applicant discharged

040427:  Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital, Bremerton, WA Ltr informing the Commander Naval Military Personnel Command, of the discharge of the Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct, as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment of 26 March 2004, 22 October 2003 and 28 February 2003. Commanding Officer’s comments: “HR D_(Applicant) was separated from the Naval Service as a result of his continued misconduct by failing to follow Navy policies and procedures as evidenced by his three nonjudicial punishments. The administrative board package is forwarded for your review and filing in member’s permanent service record for historical purposes.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20040408 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). 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). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

 The Applicant requests an upgrade based on equity. The Applicant contends that the offenses he committed were not serious but minor ones, which did not warrant separation, or the unjust discharge characterization he received. 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 when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. A retention warning and three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of UCMJ Article 86 ( abandoning the watch and unauthorized absence) and Article 92 (f ailure to obey a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of duties) marred the Applicant’s service. The NDRB advises the Applicant that c ertain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Articles 86 and 92 are considered serious offenses and typically warrant a punitive discharge if adjudged at a special or general court-martial. 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 far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant would like to return active duty status. 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. Reenlistment policy of the naval service or Marine Corps is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.







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 the service. The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, (Applicant post service letter, an Evaluation Report and Counseling Record, dtd August 8, 2003, Letter of appreciation certificate from the CO Naval Hospital Bremerton, grades from West Los Angeles College, dtd May 31, 2005, Employment verification from Lunday-Thagard Company, dtd July 5, 2005, Employment verification letter, undtd, and a post service letter from Applicant, dtd Jan 27 th , 2006) , the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct, which precipitated the discharge. 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 additional evidence related to this 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

 B. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of UCMJ, Articles 86 ( abandoning the watch and unauthorized absence) and Article 92 (f ailure to obey a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of duties)

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 .

 E. 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 | ND0500933

    Original file (ND0500933.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After reviewing these records, I feel that my conduct may not have warranted an other than honorable discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in his characterization of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501362

    Original file (ND0501362.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I am asking again to please up-grade my discharge. Date of offense: 991012.000118: Applicant to pretrial confinement.000204: Charges preferred for Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 81:Specification: In that Seaman Apprentice L_ NMN B_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Station Bremerton, Bremerton, Washington, on active duty, did, at or near Naval Station Bremerton, Bremerton, Washington, on or about 6 January 2000, conspire with a unnamed person to commit an offense under the Uniform Code...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600167

    Original file (ND0600167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00167 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20011101. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600040

    Original file (ND0600040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051004. 990820: Commanding Officer, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), recommended the Commander, Carrier Group THREE, that the Applicant be discharged with under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment imposed on 15 July 1999 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a. The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines...

  • 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600048

    Original file (ND0600048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Port Orchard Clinical Psychology Center, W_ J. C_, Ph.D., dtd May 20, 2004 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19980513...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501401

    Original file (ND0501401.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:Reference Letter from C_ B_(Applicant’s mother) dtd August 9, 2005 Reference Letter from Mr E_ P_, dtd January 17, 2005 Character Reference Letter from E_ B_ M_, dtd December 13, 2004 Letter from Applicant dtd...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501068

    Original file (ND0501068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600563

    Original file (ND0600563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated As submittedApplicant’s issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter: “The discharge should be upgraded to General under Honorable Conditions because the discharge came about from a single event that snowballed into a series of events that led to the SCM. After the initial event I was on restriction for 30 days. ” 940712: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500720

    Original file (ND0500720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00720 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050317. Relief denied.The record does not document NJP for the drug use that resulted in the Applicant’s administrative discharge or the administrative discharge process. 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