Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600644
Original file (ND0600644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-GSM2, USN
Docket No. ND06-00644

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060412 . 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 20070125 . 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 - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues
The Applicant claims he served the Navy with Honor, Courage and Commitment. The Applicant states “During my Naval Career I never had any troubles until I was put in a position of authority and that’s when it seemed by seniors tried there best to make me fall.”
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 (Member 4)
Six pages from Applicant ’s service record
 Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for report period of August 30, 2003 to November 15, 2003
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for report period of December 17, 2001 to October 1, 2002
Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for report period of October 2, 2002 to August 29, 2003
 Certificate of Distinguished Military Graduate, dated July 7, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19941219 - 19950620       COG
         Active: USN      19950621 - 20030721       HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20030722              Date of Discharge: 20050311

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 1 0 7 2 0
          Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 27

Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 44

Highest Rate: GSM1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.7 ( 3 )               Behavior: 3 . 7 (3 )                          OTA : 3 . 48

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (2), Navy Unit Commendation Medal (3), Navy “E” Ribbon (4), Navy Good Conduct Medal (3), National Defense Service Medal (2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2), Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal


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 :

030722 :  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.
040417 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Unauthorized absence.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 1258.05 per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 2 . Reduction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record. Appealed: 040423. Appeal denied: 040514.

040417:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency ( Misconduct resulting in NJP. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
050202:  Medical evaluation by R_ D. H_, HM1, USN,
         Symptoms: 29 year old AA male reports with ____ depression and desire to hurt/kill his LCPO. Pt has longstanding history of personal and command issues, especially with direct chain of command.
050211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 91 : Insubordinate conduct toward a Chief Petty Officer, to wit: strike Chief Petty Officer on 040210..
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92 : Failure to obey an order or regulation.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Threat, communicating, to wit: wrongfully communicate to DCC D_, a threat that he will kill GSMC K_ on 050210.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 1309. 00 per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 5 . No indication of appeal in the record.
050212 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of a serious offense.

050212 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights .

050212 :  Commanding Officer directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern or misconduct and commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20050311 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).

The Applicant claims he served the Navy with Honor, Courage and Commitment. 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 one retention warnings, 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a Chief Petty Officer, 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation.) and 134 (Threat, communicating) 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 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 2002 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600), 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 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a Chief Petty Officer), 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and 134 (Threat communitcating)

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 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 | ND0600087

    Original file (ND0600087.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.911206: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards a petty officer.Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500680

    Original file (ND0500680.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). 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: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600765

    Original file (ND0600765.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 to “ Honorable. Additionally, the Board found the Applicant’s contention, that his discharge is inequitable because the Applicant was not allowed to change divisions without merit. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500960

    Original file (ND0500960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.941202: Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty) and 90 (Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500490

    Original file (ND0500490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 It has been my dream, since I was very young, to defend my country by serving in the military.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501360

    Original file (ND0501360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 910923: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his enlisted service record, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501363

    Original file (ND0501363.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600551

    Original file (ND0600551.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). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 7) and (Member 4)Letter from A_ L_, Applicant’s mother, undatedReport of Mental Status Exam by R_ D. K_, Ph D, dtd December 8, 2005 (4 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700346

    Original file (ND0700346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that an upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate and also determined that the narrative reason was appropriate.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00478

    Original file (ND01-00478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I did four years honorable and only had four months left in the service when I was discharged. 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 first issue states: “My evals throughout my four year shows that I was a good sailor, and deserve a honorable discharge.” The Board reviewed the applicant’s entire service record and found a well documented...