Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600162
Original file (ND0600162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BM3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00162

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051101 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable . The Applicant requests a personal appearance discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Portland, Oregon 97233. The Applicant designate d a military member as his representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in the Washington DC at the Washington Navy Yard. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing and that military service members do not typically represent Applicant’s before the Board.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 2006092 6 . 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:
“ Wrongful Discharge, contradicting statements from my command . A lso I was not Given the right to take matters further up Chain of Command, not Given fair counsel. Member was told that the general under honorable was a gift and if I pu rsued this matter and took this to the admiral I would receive a dishonorable Discharge ( I ntinaduation?) ”
Applicant’s Remarks: (Taken from the DD Form 293.)
“ Said member was taken to captains mast and reduced in rank after 14 ½ yrs for being 10 mins late for quaters member was present but not a quaters at the time; also it was A llegded that BM2 (SW) M_(applicant) was being argumentative and raising his voice?
Member was accused of riding his motorcycle while under the influence of narcotics after a 9 hr surgery – Report of Disposition of offenses is contradicted by Recommendation for administrative separation weather offense was minor or serious? Copie of chit that Clearly denies members rights to see admiral, R equest from BMCS E_ to have member reduced in rank say this is wake up call??? ”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Special Request/Authorization, NAVPERS 1336/3, dtd May 2, 2003
 Two hundred and thirteen pages from Applicant’s service and medical records
 Letter from Navy Personnel Command, T. E. D_, Special Assistant, Congressional Liaison Office, to United States Senator G_ H. S_, dtd September 11, 2003
 Letter from United States Senator G_ H. S_ , dtd September 22, 2003
 Letter from the Applicant, dtd May 9, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19881230 - 19890103       COG
         Active: USN      19890104 - 19930909       HON
                   USN      19930910 - 19990104      HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19990105              Date of Discharge: 20030521

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 04 04 17 (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 37

Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 36

Highest Rate: BM2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.2 (5 )               Behavior: 2.6 (5 )        OTA: 2 . 86

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal (2); Navy Good Conduct Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal (3); Kuwait Liberation Medal; Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbon; Humanitarian Service Medal (2); Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal; Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait) ; Sea Ser vice Deployment Ribbon (3); Navy “E” Ribbon (3); Armed Forces Service Medal; Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist Breast Insignia.


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 :

990105 :  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.
990501:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 990501 .

 990504:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0930 on 990504 ( 3 days/surrendered).
000719 :  NJP at USS SACRAMENTO for violation s of UCMJ .
 Article 86: Unauthorized absence. Article 90 : Disobey a superior commissioned officer. Date of Offenses: 6 and 7 July 2 0 00.
         Award: R eduction (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
000720:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence and disobeying superior commissioned officers as evidenced by nonjudicial punishment of 19 July 2000.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
020719:  BMCS(SW) E_ recommended the Applicant stand nonjudicial punishment proceedings . “Petty Officer Majors came in late this morning 19 July 02 for Quarters. After questioning him on his behavior and responsibilities he became disrespectful. He has been counseled on this discrepancy on several occasions by different individuals. ” [Extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents .]

020918 :  NJP at SUBASE BANGOR for violation s of UCMJ .
 Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
 Specification : In that Boatswain’s Mate Second Class B_ D. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, on active duty, did, on or about 0830, 19 July 2002 , without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: Port Operations, located at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Silverdale, Washington, and did remain so absent until on or about 0840, 19 July 2002.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91 : Disrespect .
Specification: In that Boatswain’s Mate Second Class B_ D. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, on active duty, did, on or about 0830, 19 July 2002, was disrespectful toward Boatswain’s Mate First Class T_ S. W_, U.S. Navy, a petty officer, then known by said Boatswain’s Mate Second Class B_ D. M_, U.S. Navy, to be a superior petty officer, who was then in the execution of his office, by being argumentative and raising his voice.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 : Failure to obey a lawful order .
Specification: In that Boatswain’s Mate Second Class B_ D. M_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commander M. J. B _ , DC, U.S. Navy, not to operate his motor vehicle while narcotic medications were being taken, an order which it was his duty to obey, did at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor located in Silverdale, Washington, on or about 6 September 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully driving his motorcycle.
         Award: E xtra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 4 . No indication of appeal in the record. [Partially extracted from information provided by Applicant.]

021029 :  Medical evaluation by D_ M. S_, LT, MC, USNR, Staff Psychiatrist , a t Naval Hospital, Bremerton Mental Health Clinic.
         AXIS I: Occupational problems.
         AXIS II: Narcissistic personality disorder.
         AXIS III: No diagnosis.
         AXIS IV: Financial problems; family health concerns.
         AXIS V: GAF 6 0 (conflicts with peers and coworkers).
          Recommendation s :
1.       The patient is not currently suicidal or homicidal and is reliably contracting for safety.
2.       The member is considered psychiatrically fit for full duty (no indication for limited duty or medical board).
3.       This service member manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior that is of such severity that it appears to have led to a pattern of misconduct. Therefore, it is recommended that he be separated by command in accordance with NAVMILPERSMAN 1910-122. The member has expressed an intent to submit a letter in agreement with said recommendation.
4.       No mental health care is recommended or desired by the patient.
5.       If there are any questions regarding this evaluation, please contact the undersigned.
021122:  Medical evaluation by D_ M. S_, LT, MC, USNR, Staff Psychiatrist, at Naval Hospital, Bremerton Mental Health Clinic.
         AXIS I: Occupational problems.
         AXIS II: Narcissistic personality disorder.
         AXIS III: No diagnosis.
         AXIS IV: Financial problems; family health concerns.
         AXIS V: GAF 60-70 (mild symptoms and dysfunction)
          [Extracted from documentation provided by Applicant.]
021226:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Medically diagnosed personality disorder: “Manifests a longstanding disorder of character and behavior that is of such severity that it appears to have led to a pattern of misconduct and inability to perform adequately in military service”), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
030509 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of convenience of the government personality disorder , misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct-commission of serious offense.

030509 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
030521:  DD214: Applicant discharged under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct (JKA: Pattern of Misconduct, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-140).
030527 :  Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington , informed Commander, Naval Personnel Command, that he directed Applicant’s general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ Despite counseling and warnings, BM3 M_(Applicant) continues to commit misconduct as noted above. Petty Officer M_(Applicant) is either incapable or unwilling to adhere to the rules and regulations of this command and the U.S. Navy and refuses to conduct himself in a manner conducive to good order and discipline. BM3 M_(Applicant) has made threats of harming individuals in his chain of command during times of stress and frustration. Petty Officer M_(Applicant) has seen Mental Health multiple times in conjunction with his misconduct, and was found to manifest a longstanding disorder of character and behavior which appears to have the inability to perform adequately in the Naval service. Petty Officer M_(Applicant) was separated locally for personality disorder, pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. ”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20030521 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 implies his discharge is inequitable because it was based on being 10 minutes late for quarters and an alleged incident. The Applicant also implies his discharge is inequitable because a senior service member recommended punishment for the Applicant’s infractions of the UCMJ. 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 two retention warnings and two nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 90, 91 and 92 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 90, 91 and 92 of the UCMJ are serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction at 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 implies that his discharge was improper due to contradicting statements from his command and because he was not “given the right to take matters further up Chain of Command.” In the Applicant’s remarks from DD Form 293, the Applicant implies that he was denied his “rights to see the admiral.” The Applicant also states that he was not given “fair counsel.” On 20030509 , the Applicant waived his right to consult with counsel. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant provided any evidence, to support the contention that he was not afforded due process during his administrative processing. Relief denied.

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 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. 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 Present, 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 90, assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, Article 91, insubordinate conduct toward warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer or 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600584

    Original file (ND0600584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    *Third set of Performance and Behavior marks extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant (page 1 only) Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Pt stated that he has had suicidal thoughts since a kid but denied any plans or attempts. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500660

    Original file (MD0500660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00660 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050302. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19970305 - 19970427 COG Active: USMC 19970428 - 20001003 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20001004 Date of Discharge: 20021113 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 10 (Does not exclude lost...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600155

    Original file (ND0600155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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 | 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501513

    Original file (ND0501513.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). Thank you for your consideration and review.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Only the service and medical records were reviewed. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600053

    Original file (ND0600053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It is therefore predictable he will not be effective in the performance of his duties. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600105

    Original file (ND0600105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    That boat was the cause of my medical problems. I think I’m out of the Navy why am I back here? My discharge was wrongly assessed and needs to be changed to a honorable discharge under medical conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01438

    Original file (ND03-01438.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01438 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030905. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general(under honorable). After I my time in the brig I went before the Captain and was given the option either to stay in the Navy or be discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501505

    Original file (ND0501505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]010122: Applicant’s statement.010123: Commanding Officer, Helicopter Combat Support Squadron EIGHT recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. Therefore it is my decision to separate AR F_(Applicant) from the naval service by reason of Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense, and that his characterization of discharge is General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Applicant requests an upgrade because his...