Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501563
Original file (ND0501563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-MSSN, USN
Docket No. ND05-01563

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. 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 designated Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs as the representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060721. 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 Other Than 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 attached document/letter:

“I T_ M. W_ went in to active duty status at or around April 1995 and received a discharge of other than honorable due to an incident that took place at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL. I was stopped on base on a Friday night for not completely coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. As a result I was charged with DUI, and failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. My punishment was 30 days restriction, and 30 days extra duty. I served 21 days of this sentence, and I elected to get out of the Navy. I was ordered to see the personnel officer who was a machinist mate 1 st class, he was not in favor of me as he was rude in telling me after I said I wanted to get out, that he didn’t want me in his Navy ever again. Feeling traumatic after his verbal and yet constant abuse verbally during that session. He talked to me for about an hour, I signed my discharge papers a little bit later that after noon, I don’t remember the day. The discharge was other than honorable. I stayed in Jacksonville FL. for a period of about six years, a few months later my friends, some of them told me that the Machinists Mate 1 st Class was kicked out of the Navy for inappropriate behavior becoming of a 1 st class, he had treated several Sailors prior to my discharge and even after in the same rude manner speaking to them in a tone not befitting a 1 st Class Petty Officer. I was also reduced in rank from E-4 –E-3. I never tried to join again because of the 1 st Class Petty officer’s words.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Applicant’s DD Form 215

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19881230 – 19890125               COG
 Active: USN                        19890126 – 19930125               HON
          Inactive: USNR-R                  19930126 – 19950305               HON
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19950306 – 19950419               COG
         
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19950420             Date of Discharge: 19950922

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 05 03
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: none
         Confinement:              none

 Age at Entry: 24

 Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 38

 Highest Rate: MS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                  Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2 nd ), Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation.
* Not Applicable


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
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 Jacksonville did steal a DOD decal, which belong to another military member.
          Award: Forfeiture of $567.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction to NAS JAX for 45 days, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.

950807:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your CO’s NJP on 950720 as documented in your service record.

950807:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
950814:  Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “As a NAVET, he was thoroughly aware of Navy rules and regulations prior to reentering the service. Based on the seriousness of the offense MSSN W_ (Applicant) has committed, I strongly recommend that he be separated from the naval service with an other than honorable discharge from misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.”

950912:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19950922 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than 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 a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions 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 record contains a non-judicial punishment proceeding on 19950720 for violation UCMJ Article 111 (Drunken and reckless driving) and Article 121 (Larceny). Violation of UCMJ Articles 111 and 121 are serious offenses because 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. Typic ally, the characterization of service for members involved in misconduct due to commission of a serious offense is under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s conduct and performance, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect a failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the Navy. Therefore, the Board found that the Applicant’s service was equitably characterized. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant contends that his discharge is improper because the personnel officer verbally abused him during the discharge process. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention of command misconduct. In the absence of incriminating evidence, the Board concluded 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 Board advises the Applicant that he bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. The Applicant’s statements alone do not provide sufficient basis to grant relief. 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 post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, 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 111 Drunken driving and Article 121 Larceny.

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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00859

    Original file (ND99-00859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00859 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. In the applicant’s issue 5, the Board found that the applicant’s entire service record was taken into...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00332

    Original file (ND02-00332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please change my discharge reason to show "End of Required Active Duty" and My Reenlistment Code to an RE-1. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 900414: Civil Conviction for violation of VC 23152 (A) Driving Under the Influence.Sentence: Found guilty of driving under the influence. Issue 2: The Applicant requested that the basis for his discharge be changed to "End of Required Active Duty."

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00836

    Original file (MD04-00836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00836 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040421. I have two requests from the discharge review board. (f) (1).As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is also a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00327

    Original file (ND01-00327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like to, "THANK", the board for its time in reviewing my discharge. Members of the Board, please change my discharge to a General discharge. However, 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00853

    Original file (ND04-00853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19980415 with a general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501014

    Original file (ND0501014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant dtd September 13, 2005 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4 and 1) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19860224 – 19860303 COG Active: USN 19860304 – 19900301 HONActive: USN 19900302 – 19941201 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19941202 Date of...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00289

    Original file (ND04-00289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19960307 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to drug abuse (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00652

    Original file (ND04-00652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00652 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040309. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I honestly believe that if I had met my wife back then, that I could have been a career sailor.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01030

    Original file (MD04-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 980723: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Specifically, the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust “s ince my substantive and procedural due process rights were denied to me and my...