Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600394
Original file (ND0600394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00394

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060112 . The Applicant requests that Narrative Reason for Separation 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 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 attached letter:
“Dear Sir or Madam:

I am respectfully writing this letter to request consideration for an upgrade on my discharge from other to honorable. One of the greatest accomplishments a person can achieve is to be honorably discharged from the United States Military and serve our fine country. In coming to this realization I am asking for forgiveness for my indiscretions while in the military. I deeply regret my decision to leave the Navy before completing my tour of duty. Prior to joining the United States Navy, I graduated high school and attended college. I was involved in sports and attended church regularly. I worked steadily for Quick Fix, a hardware store in my community. I was a responsible individual and was never involved in any trouble. After attending college I decided that I wanted to honorably and respectfully serve my country and enlisted in the Navy. My family and I were very proud of this decision. The Navy became my new family as I searched to improve myself and acquire skills that would enable me to obtain a professional career. I am thankful to the Navy for helping me to reach this goal. While in the Navy I graduated with the following training: Survival Evasion Resistance arid Escape (S.E.R.E.) School, Aircrew Candidate School, and Aviation Warfare School. I strived to achieve the best in my training and did so until I made some poor decisions that resulted in disciplinary action. I attribute my poor decisions to my inexperience and immature nature that most individuals at that age encounter. There is no excuse for my actions, I can only apologize and ask forgiveness from the Navy, I would like to clear my conscious and not have to take these indiscretions to the grave. Even though I failed to complete my tour of duty, I want the respect of those who did not try to serve their county. My military experience has assisted me to become a responsible and respectable adult. I have matured and attained a career, a family, and am continuing to do the best I can as a proud citizen of the United States of America. My hope is that you will accept my apologies, consider my humble request and give me the dignity of having an honorable discharge. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely,
[signed]
A_ T_(applicant) Jr
(Applicant’s address deleted)
(Applicant’s telephone number deleted)”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Letter of character reference from N_M_, dtd October 31, 2005
Letter of character reference from M_ J. R_, not dated
Letter of character reference from N_T_, dtd November 7, 2005
Letter of recommendation from W_ G_, dtd December 30, 2005

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
        
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19960123 - 19960221       COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19960222              Date of Discharge: 19970905

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 01 06 12 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 36 day s
         Confinement:              0 day
Age at Entry: 23

Years Contracted: 4 (12- month extension)

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 57

Highest Rate: AWAA

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):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960123 :  Pre-service waiver for DWI granted.

960321:  Applicant to unautho rized absence (extracted from DD Form 214).

960322 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence (extracted from DD Form 214).
970317 :  Applicant to unautho rized absence at 0001, 970317.

970417 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1430 on 970417 ( 31 d ays ).

970501 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Unauthorized Absence.
         Specification 1: In that Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Airman A_T_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Sea Control Squadron 41, on active duty, did, on board Sea Control Squadron 41, on or about 0001, 17 March 1997, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: VS-41 Training Bldg.
         Specification 2: In that Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Airman A_T_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Sea Control Squadron 41, on active duty, did, on board Sea Control Squadron 41, on or about 0700, 17 March 1997, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be to wit: Sea Control Squadron Four One, located at NAS North Island, San Diego, California, and did remain so absent until on or about 1430, 17 April 1997 . A period of 31 Days.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 100.00 per month for 2 month s , restriction for 30 days, reduction to E- 2 . No indication of appeal in the record.
970502:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, Unauthorized Absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
970606:  Applicant to unautho rized absence at 0730, 970606.

970611 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1530 on 970611 ( 5 d ays ).



970710:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized Absence.
         Specification 1: In that Airman Apprentice A_D. T_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy, Sea Control Squadron Four One, on active duty, did, on or about 0730, 6 June 1997, without authority, absent himself from his place of duty at which he was required to be to wit: VS-41 Line Division, located at Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California, and did remain so absent until on or about 1530, 11 June 1997.
          Award: Reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
970721 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by CO’s Non-Judicial Punishment of 970501 for violation of UCMJ Article 86- (Unauthorized Absence) and CO’s Non-Judicial Punishment of 970710 for violation of UCMJ Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence).

970721 :  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.

970721 :  Commanding Officer, Sea Control Squadron 41 , recommended to the Commander, Naval Air Force. U.S. Pacific Fleet, that the Applicant be discharge d with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct . Commanding Officer’s comments: “ AA T_ (Applicant) has shown an inability to adhere to the Navy’s policies and regulations. Therefore, in lieu of all the facts, I recommend AA T_ (Applicant) be separated from the Naval Service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge . ”

970821 :  Commander , Naval Air Force. U.S. Pacific Fleet granted the authority to Commanding Officer, Sea Control Squadron 41 to discharge the Applicant with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.



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 19970905 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).

For edification: on the Applicant’s DD Form 293, block 3., “Board Action Requested”, the Applicant checked box “d. Change Reason for Discharge”, and then wrote in “Honorable”. The Board presumed that the Applicant intended to request that the Board review the characterization of the discharge, not the narrative reason. “Honorable” is a characterization of service, not a reason for discharge.
The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented. Therefore, relief is denied.

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his inexperience and immaturity. While he may feel that these factors were 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.

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 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 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for 3 violations of Article 86 (unauthorized absence) of the UCMJ. Violation of UCMJ Article 86, unauthorized absence more than 30 days, is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized by special 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 NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered. The Applicant provided three letters of character reference and one letter of recommendation from his employer as documentation of post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. Therefore, no relief will be granted

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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), 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 86 , unauthorized absence for a period in excess of 30 days .
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 | 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 | 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500988

    Original file (ND0500988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. On 19960320, the Commanding Officer, Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 48, recommended that the Applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545

    Original file (ND0501545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501027

    Original file (ND0501027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050601. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). During my absence (AWOL), a new Captain took over the “US S Fresno (LST-1182).” The old Captain was aware of the situation and he left no information or instruction to the new Captain as to what was going on in the ship’s office.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00614

    Original file (ND04-00614.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900102: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (Charge I): Unauthorized absence (three specifications). Charged 6 days leave.900731: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (Specification): Unauthorized absence from 0930, 900712 until on or about 0334, 900713.Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Dereliction in the performance of duties (negligence), failed to perform duties as a member of Duty Section I. I recommend that AA G_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00051

    Original file (ND04-00051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00051 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031008. 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501394

    Original file (MD0501394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501025

    Original file (ND0501025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I recommend his characterization of service be other than honorable.”040722: COMPHIBRU THREE, directed that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 | ND0600337

    Original file (ND0600337.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). The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.