Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600485
Original file (ND0600485.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GSMFN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00485

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 20061206 . After a thorough review of the available 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 .
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 12a, Record of Service, Date Entered AD This Period, should read: “ 97 07 28,” and Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read: “ 07 07 06 ,” Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE DUTY FROM 19970728 UNTIL 20010422,” Block 24 , Character of Service , should read: “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS , ” Block 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period, should read: “20041208-20050308 (90). ” The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate .





PART I

- ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues
Equity: Misconduct did not warrant an under other than honorable conditions characterization.


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
10 pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19970227 - 19970727       COG
         Active: USN      19970728 – 20010422      HON

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010423              Date of Discharge: 20050603

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 4 0 1 1 1 (Does not inc lude lost time )
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 90 day s
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 25

Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 69

Highest Rate: GSM 2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages * (number of marks):

 Performance: 4 . 2 ( 5 )              Behavior: 3.2 ( 5 )                 OTA : 3.60

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy Good Conduct Medal, Navy Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2 nd ), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Fleet Marine Force Ribbon, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, Letter of Commendation, Enlisted Surface Warfare Qualified, Enlisted Aviation Warfare Qualified

* Includes evaluations submitted by Applicant




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).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

010423 :  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.

041208 :  T o unauthorized absence at 1445 on 041208 .
050108:  Declared deserter this date.

 050308 :  F rom unauthorized absence at 2110 on 050308 ( a pprehended).
050314 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 85 : Desertion.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 250. 00 pay per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 4 . No indication of appeal in the record.
050506:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (3 Specs): Absence without leave.
 Award: Forfeiture of $ 821.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
050520:  Separation physical completed this date.

 050603:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct, Separation Code HKA.

Service Record did not contain the Ad ministrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20050603 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 available 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 government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. In the Applicant’s case, in the absence of a complete discharge package and without credible and substantial evidence to refute the Board’s presumption, the Board invoked the presumption of regularity. Specifically, the Board presumed that the Applicant met the criteria for discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the Applicant was properly notified of his Commanding Officer’s intent to administratively process the Applicant for separation, that the Applicant was afforded all rights which he elected at notification and that the Applicant’s discharge was directed by proper authority.

The Applicant implies that his discharge was inequitable because he deserved an honorable discharge after over seven years of service. The Board did note the Applicant’s previous honorable service, which ended on 20010422. However, the Board found the Applicant’s issue without merit. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. 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 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 85 and 86 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s violation of Article 85, desertion, is the commission of a serious offense. 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 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 consideration. 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), Change 11, effective
26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-140, 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 85, desertion.

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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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 | ND0600788

    Original file (ND0600788.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20050415 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. ” The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600462

    Original file (ND0600462.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 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20000207 - 20000816ELS USNR (DEP) 20010921 - 20011118 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20011119 Date of Discharge: 20050310 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 03 0322(Does not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900219

    Original file (ND0900219.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record of evidence shows the Applicant was properly notified of discharge proceedings based on the reasons of “Pattern of Misconduct” and “Commission of a Serious Offense.” The Separating Authority should have determined the primary basis for the separation when approving the recommended discharge. The NDRB therefore determined the remedy for this administrative error is to change the Narrative Reason for separation to the more favorable of the two reasons, “Pattern of Misconduct”, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00232

    Original file (ND00-00232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501160

    Original file (ND0501160.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 Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“I would like the board to review my discharge & change it to honorable and/or change my RE-4 code to RE-3 or RE-2. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01263

    Original file (ND03-01263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600156

    Original file (ND0600156.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. 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). The Applicant can provide documentation to support post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500096

    Original file (ND0500096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. There is no requirement for a commanding officer to award a NAVPERS 1070/613 following NJP.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00609

    Original file (ND99-00609.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 860314 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct pattern frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities (A and B). After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00071

    Original file (ND01-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Copy of DD Form 214 Employment record for past five years Dissolution of marriage dated August 30, 1991 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 861201 - 861217 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 861218 Date of Discharge: 900831...