Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600002
Original file (ND0600002.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AEAN USN
Docket No. ND06-00002

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050928. 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 20060629. 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 a pattern of misconduct .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“The only issue that I am looking to change is my re-code. I would like nothing more than to have it changed from a RE-4, which doesn’t allow me to re-join the service to a RE-3 so that I can forward my military career.”

 Applicant’s Remarks: Taken from the DD Form 293 to the Board.

“I would like for the Board to take into consideration the only type of problems I had while in the navy was financial issues. Since my separation I have raised a family and I believe myself to be much mature and financially more responsible. I along with my LPO, Division CPO, and fellow shipmates found me to be a valuable asset to the command and work center. I would like to thank the board for all the time and consideration put into my case and hopefully the decision will be rewarding to the armed forces and me.

Thank You,


[signed] R_ B_ (Applicant)”
Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20001117 - 20001225      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20001226             Date of Discharge: 20041022

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 09 26
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 61

 Highest Rate: AEAN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.0 (4)              Behavior: 2.3 (4)                          OTA : 3 .0
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Pistol Marksmanship Medal, First Navy Good Conduct Medal Awarded 03DEC25, Battle Efficiency Ribbon.


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 :


040317:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (3 Specs):
         Specification 1: In that AEAN R_ J. B_ (Applicant), USN (SSN #), PATRON EIGHT, NAS Brunswick, ME, did on or about 30 January 2004, make and utter Navy Exchange a certain check, in words and figures as follows, to wit; for the purchase of _____ and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the ____Bank of such check in full upon its presentation for payment.
         Specification 2: In that AEAN R_ J. B_ (Applicant), USN, (SSN#), PATRON EIGHT, NAS Brunswick, ME, did on or about 5 February 2004, make and utter to Navy Exchange a certain check, in words and figures a follows, to wit: for the purchase of ______ and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the _____ Bank of such check I full upon its presentation for payment.
         Specification 3: In that AEAN R_ J. B_ (Applicant), USN, (SSN#), PATRON EIGHT, NAS Brunswick, ME, did on or about 12 February 2004, make and utter to Navy Exchange a certain check, in words and figures as follows, to wit: for the purchase of ______ and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the _____ Bank of such check in full upon its presentation for payment.
         Award: Reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months) page 13 written reprimand. No indication of appeal in the record.

040319:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Check worthless, making and uttering by dishonorably failing to maintain funds.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
040922:  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 pattern of misconduct (set pattern of failure to pay just debts).

040922:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
041014:  Commanding Officer, Patrol Squadron Eight, recommended to Commander, Navy Personnel Command that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct. Commanding Officer’s comments: “AEAN B_ (Applicant) has demonstrated that he is not interested in keeping with the best interest of the Navy. He has repeatedly failed to maintain economic discipline and financial responsibility. He has demonstrated an overall lack of concern and willingness to correct his deficiencies. He has been given several opportunities to correct his deficiency, including two financial counseling sessions and financial planning assistance. His disregard for the Navy’s Core Values is detrimental to other sailors and the community’s perception of our Sailors. Therefore, I am recommending administratively separating AEAN B_ (Applicant) with a General Characterization Service per reference (a), Article 1910-140.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20041022 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 Applicant contends that his service characterization should be upgraded because he was a valuable asset to the command and he only had financial problems. 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 one retention warning, nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Article 134 (3 specs) of the UCMJ, and a set pattern of failure to pay just debts. Violations of Article 134 of the UCMJ 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 requests a change to his reenlistment code. 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. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

The Applicant contends that he has matured and is more financially responsible since his discharge from the Navy. 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, credible evidence of financial stability and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any 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 134 – dishonorably failing to pay debt.
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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600214

    Original file (ND0600214.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) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00222

    Original file (ND00-00222.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00222 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600165

    Original file (ND0600165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. After returning from treatment, the member states she did not gamble at all for nearly 9 months, and then in July 01, she began to gamble excessively again. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00459

    Original file (ND04-00459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “To Whom It May Concern:Applicant) am requesting a review of my military record to obtain an Honorable Discharge versus a General, Under Honorable Discharge to obtain my education benefits from the Veterans Affairs Office. Therefore, she was discharged from the naval service with a characterization of General, under honorable conditions.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501235

    Original file (MD0501235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00046

    Original file (FD2003-00046.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    m AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN TYPE GEN PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW COUNSEL : Oy 2 NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES NO xX OS MOVE OF THE BOARD” 7) MEMBERS SITTING HON] GEN goTHc ~~] OTHER ISSUES ~ A93.11, A94.53 INDEX NUMBER (UNS EXBOBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD A47.00 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600071

    Original file (MD0600071.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). Not appealed.031030: Charges preferred against Applicant: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Specification 1: In that Private L_ H. W_(Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Marine Aircraft Group 49 Det B, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Forces Reserve, Newburgh, New York, on active duty having knowledge of a lawful order issued by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545

    Original file (ND0501545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00229

    Original file (FD2005-00229.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former A1C) (HGH SSgt) 1. (Change Discharge to Honorable) ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF. BOAR0 ACTION REQUESTED lX onel % CHANGE TO HONORABLE CHANGE TO GENERAUUNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS CHANGE TO UNCHARACTERIZED (Nor applicable for Air Force) CHANGE NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPARATION TO: (VYWMMDDI (ff date is mare than 15 years ago, submit a DO Form 149) 2002 1223 % 3.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00173

    Original file (MD00-00173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Two months prior to the Special Court-Martial, while in Yuma, the applicant was found guilty of writing 29 worthless checks. 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...