Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600517
Original file (ND0600517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AR, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00517

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060131. 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 20070110 . 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 and/or attached document/letter:

“Of my own opinion I cannot say that their’s and error in my record, but I changle the justice in it, I was a young boy who was looking to become a man I join the Navy for all these things and more, while serving I got married I was station on the East Coast with my wife, later I was order to move to the West Coast after the trip around I got leave for X-mas and went home to suprise my family and wife, to make a long store short I was the one suprise I just didn’t understand things then like now. And if I could do everything over, I never would have handle things the way I did but I got myself together and came back and paid my debt, now Im a man I realize that the person I am today is because of my experience in the military. I been out of the military for 13 years now, but my experience will be a part of me for the rest of my life. So Im writing to ask for a chance to right a wrong. I love my country and my country been good to me, but I hope the military dont whole this mistake I made against me for the rest of my life. I serve 2 years 10 months 4 days as show on my DD 214 of a 3 year enlistment.”
Applicant’s remarks (block 16):

“Help me to right a wrong.”
Documentation
In addition to the service and medical record s , the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant , was considered:
Applicant ’s DD Form 214 (Service - 2)

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 Enlistment: 19880830              Date of Discharge: 19910919

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 0 2 1 0 0 4 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: 00 02 16

Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 152 day s
         Confinement:              2 5 day s

Age at Entry: 20

Years Contracted: 8 (Active Mariner Program: 36 months active duty; 36 months satisfactory performance in Selected Reserve; 24 months in Individual Ready Reserve.)

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 28

Highest Rate: AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.3 ( 3 )               Behavior: 3.3 ( 3 )                 OTA: 3.33

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal; Se a Service Deployment Ribbon


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 :

881116 :  Commenced active duty for a period of 36 months in the Active Mariner Program.

900108:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700.
900109:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0645.
900731:  Applicant UA from 0 700-0720 .
900815:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700.
900816:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 (1 day).
901228:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0730 on 901228.

 910111:  Applicant missed ship’s movement.

 910127:  Applicant declared a deserter.

 910528:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0730 (151 days/surrendered). EAOS changed to 920405.
910802 :  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
          Specification: UA fm unit fm 901228 to 910528.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87:
         Specification: Missing ship’s movement by design on 910111.
          Finding: to Charges and the specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $502.00, confinement for 30 days, reduction to E-1.
          CA action 910809: Sentence approved and ordered executed .

910802:  Applicant found fit for confinement.

 910802:  Applicant to confinement.

 910803 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses.

910806 :  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights. Applicant did not object to separation.

910826:  Applicant from confinement (25 days).

 910831 :  Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN , recommended to BUPERS that the Applicant be discharge d under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ AR R_ ( Applicant ) reported to this command on 890323 and proved to be an average performer. His unauthorized absence of five months combined with missing ship’s movement by design resulting in a court-martial has shown his total disregard for the Navy’s rules and regulations. AR R_ lacks the proper initiative, motivation and maturity to be a productive member of the Navy. Therefore, I strongly recommend that AR R_ be discharged from the Naval Service with an other than honorable discharge due to misconduct as evidenced by the commission of serious offenses. ”

910902:  Applicant found physically qualified for separation.

 910906 :  BUPERS directed the Applicant 's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19910919 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by a Summary Court-Martial for violations of Articles 86 and 87 of the UCMJ. The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Article 86 and 87 are considered serious offenses and a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged at a special or general court-martial. The Applicant implies that his disciplinary problem was the result of stress caused by his family situation . The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. 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 has no authority to provided additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.


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. 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 s 86, Absence without leave ( more than 30 days) and 87, Missing movement .
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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500777

    Original file (ND0500777.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I would then be taken before a board, given a representative And at that time I should tell them I joined specifically to play basketball for the Navy. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600187

    Original file (ND0600187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 900816: Applicant returned to USS AUSTIN.910124: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit 0100, 901228 to 1530, 901228. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500774.HR

    Original file (ND0500774.HR.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant is asking that the Board upgrade his discharge to honorable. 920522: Commanding Officer, USS WILLIAM H STANDLEY (CG 32) recommended to the Bureau of Naval Personnel that the Applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00019

    Original file (ND04-00019.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 discharge review. Concerning reenlistment, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reentry into the naval service or any other of the Armed Forces.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00748

    Original file (ND02-00748.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Request for Military Record Copy of Naval Speed Letter (Request for hard copy of service record) Letter from Applicant (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500769

    Original file (ND0500769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. CA action 971119: Sentence approved and ordered executed.980422: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence (3 Specs). 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01087

    Original file (ND99-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 9Jul90 to 14AUG90 (36 days). 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he successfully completed the first 4 years of his enlistment and because he was not transferred to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00750

    Original file (ND02-00750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00750 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020502, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. (DAV Issue) After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Naval Discharge Review Board of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to support the contentions as set forth by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01239

    Original file (ND99-01239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    830820: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Unauthorized absence from NTC, Great Lakes, IL commencing on/or about 0545, 820913 and termination on/or about 0830, 820922 and Unauthorized absence from USS CHARLESTON (LKA-113), located at Norfolk, VA commencing on/or about 830307 and termination on/or about 830423), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. After a thorough review of the records,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500068

    Original file (ND0500068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any 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