Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600121
Original file (ND0600121.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PNSR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00121

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051020. 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. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington D.C. area. The Applicant did not respond. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 200608 25 . 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 a pattern of misconduct .


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“In brief, looking back I made the wrong decision. I felt that being lied to and told half truths was reason enough for me to end my service. Had I stayed in longer, I would have know n better. I admit that I made a life altering mistake, and I’ve regretted it every day since. I ask only for understanding and forgiveness from a boy who didn’t know what it meant to be a man. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[signed] (Applicant).”
Documentation
Only the service was 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)     19891108 – 19891121      COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19891122             Date of Discharge: 19900928

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 07 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 3 days
         Confinement:              none

 Age at Entry: 20

 Years Contracted: 4 (24-month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 62

 Highest Rate: PNSR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 2.0 (2)              Behavior: 2.0 (2)                 OTA: 2.00

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None.


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900711: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0900 on 900711.

900711:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 1100 on 900711.
900712: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0900 on 900712.

900713: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0900 on 900713.

900719: Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0900 on 900719.

900730:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0800 on 900730.

900730:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0835 on 900730.

900731:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from VAW 115 at NAF Atsugi, Japan at 0730 on 900731.
900731:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0910 on 900731.
900808:  Medical evaluation by NAVHOSP YOKOSUKA JA.
          AXIS I: No diagnosis other than alcohol dependence, by history.
         AXIS II: (1) Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, EPTE, Severe.
                  (2) Borderline Personality Disorder, EPTE, Moderate.
          Recommendation: It is the opinion of this examiner that member s personality disorder preclude ability to adapt to naval service. Strongly urge expeditious administrative separation IAW MILPERSMAN 3620200, SECNAVINST 1910.1E, and OPNAV 13/87 for “unsuitability” although “fit” for duty, in this sense that he is not eligible for medical retirement, his personality disorder may result in impulsive actions that could harm himself or others. He is not currently an imminent risk to self or other and not in need of psychiatric hospitalization.
900809:  Applicant to unauthorized absence from VAW 115 at NAF Atsugi, Japan at 0730 on 900809.
900810:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 on 900810.
900810:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (UA from 0800 to 0835 on 30 July 1990; UA from 0730 to 0910 on 31 July 1990; UA from 0730 9 August to 0730 10 August 1990.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
900814:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0730 on 900814.

 900816:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 on 900816 (2 days/returned).
900816:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (9 specs),
 Specification 1: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 0900, 11 July 1990, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: the mess decks.
Specification 2: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 1100, 11 July 1990, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: the mess decks.
Specification 3: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 0900, 12 July 1990, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: the mess decks.
Specification 4: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 0900, 13 July 1990, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: the mess decks.
Specification 5: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), USN, USS MIDWAY, on active duty, did, on board USS MIDWAY, at or about 0900, 19 July 1990, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty, to wit: the mess decks.
Specification 6: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, did, at or about 0800, 30 July 1990, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 115 Admin Office, located at Hangar 187, USNAF Atsugi, Japan, and did remain so absent until at or about 0835 on or about 30 July 1990.
Specification 7: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, did, at or about 0730, 31 July 1990, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 115 Admin Office, located at Hangar 187, USNAF Atsugi, Japan, and did remain so absent until at or about 0910 on or about 31 July 1990.
Specification 8: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, did, at or about 09 August 1990, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 115 Admin Office, located at Hangar 187, USNAF Atsugi, Japan, and did remain so absent until at or about 10 August 1990.
Specification 9: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, did, at or about 14 August 1990, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be, to wit: Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 115 Admin Office, located at Hangar 187, USNAF Atsugi, Japan, and did remain so absent until at or about 16 August 1990.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (2 specs),
Specification 1: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by PN1 O_ D. S_, U.S. Navy, to get out of bed and report to VAW 115 Admin for work, and order which it was his duty to obey, did on or about 14 August 1990, fail to obey the same.
Specification 2: In that SR S_ R_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by PN2 A_ P. S_, U.S. Navy, to get out of bed and report to VAW 115 Admin for work, and order which it was his duty to obey, did on or about 15 August 1990, fail to obey the same.
          Award: Forfeiture of $362.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to USS MIDWAY [CV-41] for 60 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900822:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder and misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by psychiatric evaluation and by all punishments under the UCMJ in your current enlistment.

900822:  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.
900823:  Commanding Officer, CARAEWRON ONE ONE FIVE recommended discharge other than honorable by reason of convenience of the government due to personality disorder and/or misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. Commanding Officer’s comments: “PNSR R_’s (Applicant) conduct has been such that he is an administrative burden. His mental condition is such that each time there is a man-overboard called the first thing that comes to mind is “OH NO, Seaman R_ (Applicant) has decided to jump.” This man has not adjusted to the Navy and is making no attempt to try. A page 13 counseling for being UA was signed on 10 Aug 90. On 14 Aug 90, Seaman R_ (Applicant) violated page 13 counseling by being UA until 16 Aug 90. I recommend PNSR R_ (Applicant) be separated as soon as possible with a characterization of discharge as other than honorable.”
900828:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct ( pattern ) .

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19900928 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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).

In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Specifically, Applicant alleged that he had been lied to and told half truths which was reason enough for him to end his service. The record, however, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone in the discharge process. The Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. As such, Applicant’s discharge was regular in all respects. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to the fact that he was “a boy who didn’t know what it meant to be a man”. While he may feel that his youth and immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

The Applicant stated “I admit that I made a life altering mistake, and I’ve regretted it every day since”. 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. An 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 was marred by, one nonjudicial punishment proceeding on 19900816 for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 9 specifications) and 92 (failure to obey order, regulation, 2 specifications) and one retention warning. For the edification of the Applicant, violations of UCMJ Article 92 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized by a court martial proceeding. 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 following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. The Applicant has exhausted his opportunities for review by the NDRB. The NDRB has no authority to provide additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A, Change 8 effective 21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A 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 order, regulation).

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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

    Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600187

    Original file (ND0600187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 900816: Applicant returned to USS AUSTIN.910124: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit 0100, 901228 to 1530, 901228. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01105

    Original file (ND02-01105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 86- unauthorized absence.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600312

    Original file (ND0600312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051207. No indication of appeal in the record.900907: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed of duty, restricted muster 900907. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were sufficient to merit clemency (C).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00789

    Original file (ND02-00789.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00789 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020513, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government & RE-1. During the time I was attending my C school, I became aware of the fact that four months prior to our marriage, R_ had become the victim of sexual assault. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00360

    Original file (ND00-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Intentions unknown.850423: Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1700, onboard Naval Station Philadelphia, PA. (25 days UA).850426: Applicant commenced unauthorized absence at 0730, 85APR26, while being processed by NAVSTA Phila, PA for transfer to USS PELELIU (LHA 5) under technical arrest orders. Sentence: Confinement for 31 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501540

    Original file (ND0501540.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. I recommend that SR M_ (Applicant) be discharged from the Naval Service and that the characterization of discharge be Other Than 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500737

    Original file (ND0500737.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to uncharacterized. Everything was good until my mom got sick, so I decide to go UA to my house. Please Sir, I am really sorry for what I did long time ago, I promise you that I will do my best if you give me the chance to go back, if I have to do anything to go back I will do it no matter what, if I have to go back to boot camp I will go or if I have to go back to the brig I will go, I you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00203

    Original file (ND02-00203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00203 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After such a high failure rate the Navy went back to the old curriculum, but my path to Naval success had already taken a turn for the worse. for a day or two and I started to get into trouble by being restricted to the ship.

  • 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,...