Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600481
Original file (ND0600481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AGAN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00481

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060214 . 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 20061214 . 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 ization of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense .
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 26 , Separation Code, should read: “JKQ. ” The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues :

Equity – one isolated incident
Equity – post service

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Grossmont College Student Class & Fee Statement, dtd October 19, 2005
 Grossmont College Student Class & Fee Statement, dtd January 17, 2006
Grossmont College Student Class & Fee Statement, dtd November 28, 2005
 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and Member 2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20011215 - 20020303       COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20020304              Date of Discharge: 20050105

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 2 10 02
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 27

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 75

Highest Rate: AG 3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2 . 75 ( 4 )             Behavior: 3 .0 ( 4 )                          OTA: 3 .00

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Overseas Service Ribbon (2), National Defense Service Medal


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

041021 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 108 :
         Specification : In that Aerographer’s Mate Third Class M_ D_ H_, (Applicant), Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Detachment Misawa, Japan, on active duty, did, on or about 041005 , without proper authority, willfully suffer an unclassified computer of a value of approximately $2500 military property of t he United Stated, to be destroyed by removing internal components, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $2500.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ ½ pay per mon th for 2 month s , extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E- 3 . No indication of appeal in the record.
041209 :  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 commission of a serious offense.

041209 :  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.

041213 :  Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center, notified Commander, Naval Personnel Command that the Applicant would be discharge d with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ AGAN H_ (Applicant) was notified in enclosure (1) of his processing for separation. He was awarded a General Discharge with a code of GKA due to his blatant disregard of Navy Regulations and overall lack of respect for the people he works for and with. His willful destruction of government property interfered with the operational capability of his unit. Additionally, his lack of appreciation of the seriousness of this offense and his commensurate unrepentant nature, warrant his administrative discharge from the United States Navy. ”

041213:  Applicant was found physically qualified for separation.
041215:   Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Pacific, Meteorology and Oceanography Center, directed that the Applicant be discharge d with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense.

050105:  The Applicant was discharged.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20050105 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident. 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 nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of UCMJ Article 108 (willful destruction of government property). Violations of Article 108 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is warranted at 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 provided documentation of college attendance to show post service accomplishments in support of his request for upgrade. 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 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 sufficient post-service documentation to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 108 (willful destruction of government property).

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 .

 E. 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 | ND0501361

    Original file (ND0501361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 19900817 – 19910814 COG Active: USN 19910815 – 19950813 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19950814 Date of Discharge: 19960503 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 00 08 19 Inactive: None ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600084

    Original file (ND0600084.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:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (member 1 copy) Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20000427 – 20000525 COG Active: None Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701097

    Original file (ND0701097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19980818 - 19981108 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19981109Years Contracted:4; Extension: 22 monthsDate of Discharge:20040607Length of Service:05 Yrs 06 Mths29 DysLost Time:Education Level: Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501262

    Original file (ND0501262.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.950404: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongfully using provoking and reproachful words.Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs) Specification 1: Fail to obey regulation – Wrongfully expose himself to alcohol under 20 yrs old...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00365

    Original file (ND00-00365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 870413 - 930603 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870325 - 870412 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930604 Date of Discharge: 980602 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 11 28 Inactive: None 980522: Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01112

    Original file (ND01-01112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020328. 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).Issue 1 states: “At the time of offenses committed I had been drinking and the offenses would not have been committed had I not been drinking.” The applicant was guilty at NJP on two separate occasions for violation of the UCMJ. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800456

    Original file (ND0800456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Each Violation of UCMJ Article 92, 107 and 108 constitute the “commission of a serious offense”, the discharge basis in this case. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01138

    Original file (ND99-01138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :880911: Counseling: Advised of deficiency (concerning a motorcycle incident which occurred on 9Sep88. No indication of appeal in the record.890914: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.890915: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00028

    Original file (ND01-00028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is, therefore, recommended that Seaman Apprentice (applicant) be separated administratively from the Naval Service under 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’s issues state: “I have been a good citizen since discharge.” and “I have been working and saving money to go to college.” The applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900371

    Original file (ND0900371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further, there is no requirement for the commanding officer to convene an investigation prior to initiatingall NJP proceedings or administrative separation processing unless he determines additional evidence or information is needed.Based on a review of the record and facts unique to this case, the Board has determined there was sufficient evidence to support the basis for discharge due to the commission of a serious offense. Therefore, relief is denied.After a thorough review of the...