Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501529
Original file (ND0501529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AD3, USN
Docket No. ND05-01529

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050912. The Applicant requests 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 20060621. 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 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 wish to continue my military career. My record shows loyalty, good conduct and a clean record for 91/2 years. The arranged charges against me do not change the strong patriotism and loyalty I feel for my country. The military is the only career I wish to pursue. I have done nothing to merit a pattern of misconduct and wish to serve our Great Country for at least 20 more years.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Extracted from Service Record (98 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19940615 - 19950604      COG
         Active: USN      19950605 – 19990521      HON
         Active: USN      19990522 – 20030106      HON


 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20030107             Date of Discharge: 20041227

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 20
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: AD2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.4 (5)              Behavior: 2.8 (5)                 OTA : 3 .3
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy Battle “E” Ribbon (2), Navy Good conduct Medal (Period Ending 04 June 05 (3), National Defense Service Medal (2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2), Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (4), Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.


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

HONORABLE/ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

030107:  Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.
040920:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification 1: In that Aviation Machinist’s Mate Second Class P_ E. W_ (Applicant), SSN, U.S. Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 30 August, 2004, Violate a lawful order, to wit: Results of Disciplinary Review Board dated 20 August 2004, by not maintaining proper uniform regulations.
         Specification 2: In that Aviation Machinist’s Mate Second Class P_ E. W_ (Applicant), SSN, U.S. Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 28, June, 2004, Violate a Naval Regulation, to wit: Chapter 2 of the U. S. Navy Uniform Regulations, by reporting for duty unshaven with uniform in disarray and dirty.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 107:
Specification: In that Aviation Machinist’s Mate Second Class P_ E. W_ (Applicant), SSN, U.S. Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 30 August, 2004, with intent to deceive, make to Aviation Machinist’s Mate First Class E_ O. P_, an official statement, to wit: that he had shaved the previous evening, which was totally false, and then known by said P_ E. W_ (Applicant) to be so false.
          Award: Forfeiture of $1125.00 pay per month for 1 months, reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
041116:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification: In that Aviation Machinist’s Mate Second Class P_ E. W_, SSN, U.S. Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 31 October, 2004 Violate a lawful order, to wit: result of Commanding Officer’s Non-judicial Punishment on 21 September, 2004, to complete AD OJT by 10 October, 2004.
         Violation of UCMJ, Article 107:
 Specification: In that Aviation Machinist’s Mate Second Class P_ E. W_ (Applicant), SSN, U.S. Navy, on active duty, did, on or about 31 October, 2004, with intent to deceive, make an official statement, to wit: a journal entry that he had shaved that morning, which was totally false, and then known by said P_ E. W_ (Applicant) to be false.
         Award: Forfeiture of $907.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduction to E-4. No indication of appeal in the record.
041119:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.
041119:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
041127:  Commanding Officer, Electronic Attack Squadron ONE THREE TWO recommended to Commander Navy Personnel Command that the Applicant will be discharged with a honorable by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct. Commanding Officer’s comments: “AD3 P_ E. W_ (Applicant), is being separated for Reason of Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct. Since reporting, AD3 W_ (Applicant)’s work performance has been below average and in steady decline. Over the past six months AD3 W_ has had no interest in personal rehabilitation or career recovery. After first imposing Non-written and verbal effort by his chain of command to improve his performance and become a productive Sailor in the United States Navy. AD 3 W_ (Applicant)’s repeated failure to follow orders in regard to job performance, and his continued false official statements involving his substandard personal grooming, is inconsistent with military service and he should be subsequently characterization of service of Honorable based on his length of service and my overall assessment that his unsatisfactory performance has not defined his entire tenure.”

041227:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged Applicant with a character of service of honorable and narrative reason of pattern of misconduct.
*Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20041227 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) 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 (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
The NDRB advises the applicant that his service record has a partial administrative discharge package. In the Applicant’s case, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and that the Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects.

The Applicant contends that he has “done nothing to merit a pattern of misconduct”. He further contends that his” record shows loyalty, good conduct and a clean record for 91/2 years”. The Board advises the Applicant that despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Additionally, m embers may be separated when during the current enlistment they have two or more non-judicial punishments, court-martial, or civil convictions, or combination thereof. In the Applicant’s case, t he evidence of record shows that the Applicant’s service was marred by, two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 92 (2 specs: Failure to obey a lawful order) and 107 (2 specs: False official statement). Violations of Article 92 and 107 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 states he wishes to continue his military career. 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 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.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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. 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. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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 the UCMJ, Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order) and 107 (false official statement).

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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00125

    Original file (ND99-00125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of a pre-trial agreement submitted by Petty Officer (applicant) and his counsel, I entertained non-judicial punishment in his case and accepted his request to waive his administrative board and be discharged from the naval service with an Other than Honorable discharge. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501342

    Original file (ND0501342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “RE Code.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Leave request/authorization, dtd December 6, 2001 Applicant’s DD Form 214 JUMPS LES Online Inquiry,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01195

    Original file (ND99-01195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. 970313: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless driving. 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 (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400471

    Original file (ND1400471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500564

    Original file (ND0500564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This written testimony of peers, and myself sits in front of you today in hopes that reversal of my military code and reinstatement into the Navy may be granted. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600367

    Original file (ND0600367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it requested that the Board consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case, to include the impetuosity of his youth, and grant a favorable decision.If a favorable decision can not be granted at this time, it is requested that the Applicant be scheduled for a future Hearing.DAV” Documentation In addition to the service record, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500909

    Original file (ND0500909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In my case I felt the same way about the Chiefs in my command and I was only accused of a total of six hours unauthorized absence. 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. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500619

    Original file (ND0500619.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 but inequitable (B, C, and D).The Applicant contends that his discharge was a penalty that was disproportionate to the offense for which he was court-martialed, especially when he had no knowledge of the incident for which charges were preferred. The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501563

    Original file (ND0501563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 950420: Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.950720: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 111: Drunken or reckless driving, MS3 W_, did onboard NAS Jacksonville, on 950703, disregard a stop sign and proceed at a high rate of speed while drunk.Violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny, MS3 W_ onboard NAS...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501509

    Original file (ND0501509.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-AR, USN Docket No. 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:Department of Veterans Affairs Statement in Support Claim, dtd September...