Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600354
Original file (ND0600354.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00354

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060104. 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. The Applicant did not designate a 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 National Capital Region. The NDRB also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060512. 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 application:

“I was put out of service for under age drinking and being AWOL – 1 day and 40 days. The first time I was AWOL was due to drinking – The second time I had injured my right hand – and was told I was “fit for duty.” So I went AWOL Till my hand healed.
Now I have stopped drinking and I am trying to get my life straight. So I am trying to get my discharge upgraded so I can get a better job and go to school. Please upgrade my discharge so I can improve my life.”

 Documentation
The following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
Unknown

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19891101             Date of Discharge: 19930126

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 26 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 45 days
         Confinement:              Unknown

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: Unknown

 Education Level: Unknown                           AFQT: Unknown

 Highest Rate: Unknown

 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//Southwest Asia Service Medal//Navy Unit Commendation
* Not Available


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - commission of a serious offense , authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930115:  BUPERS directed Applicant's discharge. [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 25.]

930126:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, authority: MILPERSMAN 3630600.

 The Applicant’s Service Record and Administrative Discharge package were not available for review.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19930126 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 In attempting to obtain the Applicant’s service records, the NDRB sent three requests to the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records). Further, the NDRB contacted the Applicant to request any and all documentation to support his application for discharge review. At the time of the documentary review, no records from either source had been received. In the absence of a service record and a discharge package, the presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

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. 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .

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 | ND0501563

    Original file (ND0501563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500745

    Original file (ND0500745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Comments of the Commanding Officer (verbatim): “SNM has had four alcohol related incidents within the past fourteenth months. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501169

    Original file (ND0501169.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). 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00524

    Original file (ND04-00524.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00109

    Original file (ND04-00109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Respectfully request my under other than honorable condition separation, which is stated on my copy of my DD-14 to be upgraded to a separation of General Under honorable conditions!” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500966

    Original file (ND0500966.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: Assault a First Class Petty Officer on 921128. Naval Service with a discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable condition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01241

    Original file (ND03-01241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00781

    Original file (ND04-00781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00331

    Original file (ND02-00331.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00331 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020129, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed, as the Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01329

    Original file (ND04-01329.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 930630: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The Applicant states that his discharge was “based on many offenses, but they were mostly only minor...