Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600651
Original file (ND0600651.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. ND06-00651

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 20070201 . 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 commission of a serious offense.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 The Applicant presented no decisional issues. Applicant states “I was proud to have served the Navy an am sorrowful of my performance during the last year of my service. I would like to have another opportunity for an employment position with the United States government. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
175 pages from Applicant’s service record


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19920428 - 19920608       COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19920609              Date of Discharge: 19951127

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 0 3 0 5 18 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: 30 day s
         Confinement:              30 day s

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 53

Highest Rate: AN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 . 5 ( 2 )     Behavior: 3 . 5 ( 2 )                 OTA: 3.6 0

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Commendation


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

GENER AL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

94 0715 :  Applicant Unauthorized absence from unit from 0700, 940715 to 0315, 940719 .
940804:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit from 0700, 940715 to 0315 , 940719 .
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 40 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
941011:  Applicant to Unauthorized absence on 941011. [ E xtracted from C.O. TPU Norfolk letter]

941109:  Applicant from Unauthorized absence on 941109. [Extracted from C.O. TPU Norfolk letter]
950104 :  Counseling: Advised of deficiency ( Missing divisional muster, UA from 0700-0800 on 941221 . ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.
950223 :  Summary Court-Martial.
          Charge I : violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on or about 941011 until on or about 941109.
         Plea: Guilty                                         Findings: Guilty
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Did on or about 941102 through design, miss ships movement.
         Plea: Guilty                                         Findings: Guilty
 Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91: Did willfully disobey a lawful order on or about 950115.
Plea: Guilty                                         Findings: Guilty
Charge IV: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: Disorderly conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline on 950115.
Plea: Guilty                                         Findings: Guilty
          Finding: to Charge I, Charge II, Charge III, Charge IV, and the specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Forfeiture of $568.00 pay per month for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, and reduced to E-1.
          CA action 950227 : Sentence approved and ordered executed .
        
950223:  To confinement
950317:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

950317:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the characterization of your service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.
950320:  From confinement

951017 :  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 , that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a under honorable conditions (general).
960112 :  Commanding Officer, recommended discharge with a general (under 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 19951127 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 Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. However, the Applicant states “I was proud to have served the Navy an am sorrowful of my performance during the last year of my service. I would like to have another opportunity for an employment position with the United States government.” 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 warning, one nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violation of Article 86(Unauthorized absence) of the UCMJ. The Applicant also received a Summary Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 (Unauthorized absence), 87 (Missing movement), 91 (Disobeying a lawful order) and 134 (Disorderly Conduct). 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.

For the edification of the Applicant, the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the 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), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 87 (Missing Movement) , 91 (Disobeying a lawful order) and 134 Disorderly conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).

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 | ND0600636

    Original file (ND0600636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00636 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 general (under honorable conditions).The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600792

    Original file (ND0600792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decisional Issues None Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, 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: USNR (DEP) 19911106 – 19920824 COGActive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19920825 Date of Discharge: 19951128 Length of Service (years, months, days):03 03 04(Does...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501342

    Original file (ND0501342.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 “RE Code.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Leave request/authorization, dtd December 6, 2001 Applicant’s DD Form 214 JUMPS LES Online Inquiry,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01276

    Original file (MD02-01276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01276 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020906, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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).A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions...

  • 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501460

    Original file (MD0501460.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AXIS III: Chance fracture L, Skin Burns 2 960506: Applicant to duty. 950622: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.950714: Commanding Officer, 9 th Communication Battalion, recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse, and frequent involvement of a discreditable nature, with military authorities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00158

    Original file (ND04-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends that his discharge was unfair and that he was a “model soldier.” When the service of a member of U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable or under honorable conditons. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00818

    Original file (ND02-00818.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 Certificate of Appreciation Certifcado Negativo De Antecedentes Penales PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 831201 - 840624 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 840625 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600186

    Original file (ND0600186.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 I thank you or your time and consideration.Thank You, (signed)W. T. C_ (Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant, dtd May 7, 2006 Verification of First Offense Pardon, dtd May...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600312

    Original file (ND0600312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051207. No indication of appeal in the record.900907: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed of duty, restricted muster 900907. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were sufficient to merit clemency (C).