Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501262
Original file (ND0501262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AO3, USN
Docket No. ND05-01262

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050720. 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 20060413. 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) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I would like to change my general discharge to an honorable one for the following reason: I am attempting to start back to college to complete my degree in Emergency Medicine and the general discharge I have has been holding my GI bill availability back from being processed. I feel I can give honorable service to the public in my medical carrer. I have currently been serving the community as a paramedic but am forwarding my skills as a firefighter and an instructor.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Certificate of Achievement, dtd February 27, 2005
Certificate of completion of PreHospital Trauma Life Support, dtd November 14, 2002
NAEMT recognition card, dtd February 3, 1998
Certificate of completion of Basic Trauma Life Support, Advanced Course, dtd February 2004
Certificate of completion of Basic Trauma Life Support, Pediatric Course, dtd February 2004
Certificate of completion of Healthcare Provider, dtd March 12, 2004
Certificate of completion of ACLS Provider, dtd November 2003
Certificate of completion of PALS Provider, dtd April 2004
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Worksheet)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19920722 - 19930721      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19930722             Date of Discharge: 19970228

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 07 07
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: 4 (29 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: AO3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.0 (1)     Behavior: 4.0 (1)        OTA: 4 .00        4.0 eval
 Performance: 2.7 (3)     Behavior: 2.3 (3)        OTA: 2 .91        5.0 evals
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Meritorious Unit Commendation(2), Southwest Asia Service Medal w/1 Bronze Star, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon(2), National Defense Service Medal


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

931108:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order/regulation.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 108: Military property of the U.S. - sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition.
          Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

931108:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Viol. UCMJ Art 92: Failure to obey a lawful order/regulation, to wit: violated a lawful written order by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages while under the legal drinking age, on or about 27Oct93 and Viol. UCMJ Art. 108: Military property of the United States - sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition, to wit: SNM, did, on or about 27Oct93, without proper authority, damage two mattresses in Barracks S-434 of a value of about $160.00, military property of the United States.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 950404:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongfully using provoking and reproachful words.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs)
Specification 1: Fail to obey regulation – Wrongfully expose himself to alcohol under 20 yrs old on U.S. Navy installation in Japan.
Specification 2: Failure to obey lawful order.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Drunk and disorderly to bring discredit upon the U.S. Armed Forces.
         Award: Restriction for 30 days and reduction in rate (RIR suspended six months). No indication of appeal in the record.

950509:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Alcohol incident number two.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 961004:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Alcohol incident number three.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 970116:  Applicant’s explosive handling qualification revoked per Commanding Officer’s directive.

970129:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Verbal admonishment. No indication of appeal in the record.

970207:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJPs of 1 APR 95, Failure to obey order or regulation; 30 JAN 97 Failure to obey order or regulation.
970208:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
970212:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
 Specification: In that Aviation Ordnanceman Third Class T_ M. W_(Applicant), (social security number deleted), U.S. Navy, NAF Atsugi, on active duty, did, on or about 12 December 1996, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: the 0700 morning muster at the corrosion hangar.
Award: Restriction for the remainder of time onboard, reduction to E-3. Punishment suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
970213:  Commanding Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron FOURTEEN directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJPs of 1 APR 95, Failure to obey order or regulation; 30 JAN 97, Failure to obey order or regulation; 12 FEB 97, Unauthorized absence. Commanding Officer’s comments: “AO3 W_(Applicant) has been an administrative burden on this command literally since the month he checked aboard. In this enlistment he has four page 13 warnings. In the last 6 months, he has required constant supervision above that required by his peers. On 21 Nov 96 his inattention to detail almost allowed an aircraft to launch without the drop tanks being armed and the required ordnance load out being installed in the aircraft. He negligently signed off an aircraft “A” sheet without verifying the authenticity of the document. AO3 lost his Ordnance qualifications and is therefore useless to this command as an ordnanceman. He is a hazard to the lives of flight crew and HS-14 aircraft. During the NJP of 30 Jan 97 he expressed his desire to get out of the Navy so I granted his request in the interest of the Navy.
AO3 W_(Applicant) was taken to Mast again on 12 Feb 97 for a continuing pattern of misconduct. He was warned at the time he signed his Letter of Notification that any further misconduct would result in further administrative action on the part of this command. AO3 W_(Applicant) chose to “drop the pack” and slide through his last few days in this command. He was awarded Reduction in rate (suspended), 15 days restriction. ”


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19970228 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

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. The Applicant’s service was marred by three alcohol related incidents and four nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 92, 108, 117 and 134 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 92 and 108 are considered serious offenses. 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 implies that the Board should consider the Applicant’s post-service efforts at serving his community. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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. The Applicant provided one certificate of achievement and numerous certificates of completion as evidence of his post-service conduct. Examples of documentation that should also be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

Regarding the Applicant’s desire to use his GI Bill and his future career, 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 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 the UCMJ, Article 92, failure to obey and order/regulation and Article 108, willfully damage, destroy, lose or suffering to be lost, damaged, destroyed or wrongfully disposed of, government property.

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 | ND0500013

    Original file (ND0500013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “rate reduction.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Accordingly, I recommend Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Recruit F_ ‘s characterization of service to be General (Under Honorable Conditions).”970514: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties No indication of appeal in...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600135

    Original file (MD0600135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD06-00135 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051026. 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 Administrative discharge board found that the Applicant had committed misconduct based on a pattern of misconduct, but the President of the board reported that they had found he...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500612

    Original file (MD0500612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Commanding Officer further stated: “I personally intervened a year ago to deny an Administrative Discharge request on Private S_ (Applicant) submitted by the Commanding Officer of HMH-463. 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600032

    Original file (MD0600032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Extracted from DD Form 2807-1 dated 040407].040322: Commanding Officer, VMFA-321 recommended the Applicant’s under other than honorable conditions discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. Based upon supporting documentation, the administrative discharge board found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the Applicant’s misconduct and recommended separation under other than honorable conditions. On 20040322, the Commanding Officer, VMFA 321, recommended to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501071

    Original file (ND0501071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01071 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 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 (2) Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant’s Representative, dtd June 7,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01096

    Original file (MD03-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01096 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030610. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing enlistment opportunities as requested in the issue.

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00813

    Original file (MD03-00813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00813 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030402. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600223

    Original file (MD0600223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A pattern of misconduct is clearly documented in the service record. The separation authority determined that a pattern of misconduct clearly described the reason for discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600558

    Original file (MD0600558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not appealed.970709: Forfeiture of pay and reduction in pay grade awarded at NJP vacated due to continued misconduct.970709: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 1630, 970522 to 0700, 970528.Violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Dismissed. 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. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade...