Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600147
Original file (ND0600147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SHSR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00147

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051103 . 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 20060908 . 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:
“ My discharge was inequitable because I had a justifiable reason for missing ship’s movement and I had valid documents to prove my reasons .”
Documentation
Only the service record 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)     20010905 - 20020731       COG
          Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20020801              Date of Discharge: 20041102

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 2 0 3 0 2 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 16 day s
         Confinement:              none

Age at Entry: 1 7 (Parental Consent)

Years Contracted: 4 ( 12 -month extension)

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 43

Highest Rate: SHSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 1 .0 ( 2 )              Behavior: 1 . 5 ( 2 )                 OTA : 1 . 33

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy “E” Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal .


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

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

0 40416 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Unauthorized absence, on or about 3 February 2004, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 2100, duty section 4 muster .
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 107 : False official statement, on or about 28 January 2004, with intent to deceive, make to MA3 D_, an official statement to wit: “ yes, I offered to sell SHSA G_ a cell phone, but it is my old cell phone…I have a new one now and I wanted to get rid of the old one” or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and then known by the said SHSA B_ to be false.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 121 : (2 specs), Spec 1: On or about 23 January 2004, did steal a laptop computer of a value of about $3,343.05, the property of ITSA W_; Spec 2: On or about 23 January 2004, steal a Samsung A500 Cell Phone of a value of about $100.00 the property of IT3 D_ .
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 666.85 pay per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 2 . No indication of appeal in the record.
040416:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Misconduct as evidenced by non-judicial punishment on 16 April 2004 in which applicant were found guilty of Violation of the UCMJ, Art. 86 Unauthorized Absence, Article 107 False Official Statement, Art. 121 Larceny), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
040816:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0600 on 040816.

 040901:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0000 on 040901 (16days/apprehended).
040 902 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, on or about 16 August 2004, without authority, absent himself from his unit of duty, at which he was required to be, to wit: USS IWO JIMA, located at Norfolk, VA and did remain so absent until he was apprehended on or about 1 September 2004.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 87: On or about 16 August 2004, miss the movement of USS IWO JIMA, with which he was required in the course of to move; on or about 23 August 2004, miss the movement of USS IWO JIMA, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.
          Award: Forfeiture of $ 793. 00 pay per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 1 . No indication of appeal in the record.
040902 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct.

040902 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights .

041024 :  Commanding Officer, USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7) authorized the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct pattern of misconduct.

041108 :  Commanding Officer, USS IWO JIMA (LHD 7) forwarded the administrative discharge package to CNPC. Commanding Officer’s comments : “ Ship’s Serviceman Seaman Apprentice B_ (Applicant) went to Captain’s Mast on two occasions for unauthorized absence and was returned to IWO JIMA via apprehension. Since return, his performance and behavior has been on a steady decline. His chain of command devoted countless hours trying to help Seaman Apprentice B_ (Applicant) to conform to the rules and regulations of the Navy. His refusal to conform to Navy standards leaves me no other choice but to request an administrative discharge. He has no further potential in Navy . ”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20041102 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 states “My discharge was inequitable because I had a justifiable reason for missing ship’s movement and I had valid documents to prove my reasons ” . T he Applicant did not present documentation to justify his reason for missing ship’s movement. W hen 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 and 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings on 20040416 and 20040902 for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 87 (missing movement), 107 (False official statement), and 121 (Larceny) of the UCMJ. For the edification of the Applicant, violations of UCMJ Articles 87, 107 and 121 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized by a special or general courts-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 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 courts-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Articles 87 (missing movement), 107 (False official statement), and 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00409

    Original file (ND04-00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.921022: USS IWO JIMA (LPH 2) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01023

    Original file (ND02-01023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01023 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020711, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.920710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit from 920526 to 920615 (20 days/S); violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missed ship's movement on 920527. The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00711

    Original file (ND04-00711.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051107. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered: Applicant’s DD Form 214 Two pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00656

    Original file (ND02-00656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00656 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020411, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Upon reading this, for whoever it may concern, please understand I was young and made very bad decisions please consider my upgrade, because if...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501160

    Original file (ND0501160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“I would like the board to review my discharge & change it to honorable and/or change my RE-4 code to RE-3 or RE-2. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600647

    Original file (ND0600647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Because the Applicant was discharged after his EAOS, and in accordance with MILPERSMAN instruction 1910 - 208, the board voted 4 to 1 to upgrade the Applicant’s discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) with a narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority. ” The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01194

    Original file (ND01-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01194 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant described the circumstances surrounding discharge and requested a change based on his post service conduct. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500545

    Original file (ND0500545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500534

    Original file (ND0500534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is 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 5420.174D, to include a review of his in-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500644

    Original file (ND0500644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I am able & mature enough to understand that, that is why I would like your permission to re-enlist in the military & from there further my education.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 The Applicant’s service was marred by an unauthorized absence for a...