Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600388
Original file (ND0600388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00388

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060106 . 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 20061108 . 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:
“ I am seeking federal employment with the National Guard to complete the years missed in the Navy and to try and develop a better lifestyle for my family. I am a older wiser and more mature individual willing to accept responsibilities for both present and past actions. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, 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):
         
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19971230 - 19980111       COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19980112              Date of Discharge: 19981030

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 00 0 9 19 (Does not exclude lost time.)
          Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 6 day s
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 1 1                                  AFQT: 57

Highest Rate: AA

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): None

 * Not Available


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 :

980605 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Absence without leave .
 Award: R estriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
 [Extracted from Commanding Officer, Fighter Squadron Eleven ltr dtd 981117.]
980930 :  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0 7 00.
981005 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 13 00 ( 5 days/surrendered ) .
981008 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : (Total 6 days absent) .
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 463. 00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 3 0 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
981008:  NAVPERS 1070/613 Retention warning.
 [Extracted from Commanding Officer, Fighter Squadron Eleven ltr dtd 981117.]
981020:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Absence without leave.
         Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 Specs) : Disobeying a lawful order or regulation.
         Award: Forfeiture of $326.00 pay per month for 1 month, restriction for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
981022 :  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 a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in current enlistment.
981022 :  Applicant advised of rights and elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
         [Administrative note: the record is not clear as to whether or not the Applicant consulted with counsel prior to his election of rights.]

981117 :  Commanding Officer, Fighter Squadron Eleven notified C ommander, Naval Personnel Command of Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions ) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in current enlistment . Commanding Officer’s comments: “ Despite counseling and warnings, Airman Apprentice R_ (Applicant) continues to commit misconduct as noted above. Airman Apprentice R_ is either incapable, or simply unwilling, of adhering to the rules and regulations of this command and the U.S. Navy. He has consistently demonstrated a reluctance to conduct himself in a manner conducive to good order and discipline . Airman R_ was expeditiously discharged with a General Discharge on 981030. ”

Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19981030 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).

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 a retention warnings and 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of the UCMJ. 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 indicated that he is “ seeking federal employment with the National Guard to complete the years missed in the Navy and to try and develop a better lifestyle for my family .” Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the 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. 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), Change 18, effective
 12 Dec 1997 until 21 Aug 2002, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 .

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 | ND0600365

    Original file (ND0600365.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). In closing I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my file and considering my request.Sincerely, [signed] N_ M. M_ (Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501365

    Original file (ND0501365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs to Applicant, dtd July 18, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00627

    Original file (ND04-00627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Suspended punishments: To forfeit 521.00 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1.010906: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, specification: In that Airman Apprentice W_ R_ (Applicant), on active duty, US Navy Strike Fighter Squadron ONE TWO TWO, Lemoore, CA did on or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01052

    Original file (ND00-01052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981022 honorable by reason of unsatisfactory performance (A). The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00505

    Original file (ND01-00505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Seventy-Five]: Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three incidents resulting in Commanding Officer's Non-judicial Punishments for seven separate violations of the UCMJ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. 860412: Retention Warning from [Fighter Squadron Seventy-Five]: Advised of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501252

    Original file (ND0501252.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). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) Applicant’s Automated SF 600 Chronological Record of Medical Care, Naval Hospital Lemoore, dtd December 30, 2002 (2pgs) PART II - SUMMARY...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501297

    Original file (ND0501297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, reference (A) directs that the service of a member separated for a pattern of misconduct shall normally be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. In the Applicant’s case the record clearly documented the pattern of misconduct for which she was separated. 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600280

    Original file (ND0600280.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 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached letter: “ To: The Office of Senator J_ M_ (Applicant) [social security number deleted]Hello, Please review my submission to upgrade my military discharge from general under honorable to an honorable discharge and to review my reentry code to a code where it may possible for me...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00663

    Original file (ND03-00663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of the application.” Documentation In addition to the service record, 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): Inactive: None Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501011

    Original file (ND0501011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The evidence of record shows that the Applicant was notified of his Commanding Officer’s intention to recommend the Applicant’s separation on 19970513. 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