Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600664
Original file (ND0600664.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00664

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060419 . 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 Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 2007012 5 . 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 serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more .



PART I -

APPLICANT ’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues
Equity: Isolated incident under extenuating circumstances.
Equity: Discharge authority did not consider that Applicant turned himself in or the Applicant’s desire to remain of active duty.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant , was considered:
Applicant ’s statement, dated April 9, 2006
 Applicant ’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19940630 - 19941113       COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19941114              Date of Discharge: 19970407

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 0 2 0 4 24 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 174 day s
         Confinement:              100 days Applicant sentenced to 100 days at special court-martial. Actual time served not contained in record.

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4 ( 12 -month extension)

 Education Level: GED                                 AFQT: 66

Highest Rate: DN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks) Extracted from Commanding Officer’s recommendation for separation.
 :

 Performance: 3.1 (1)                        Behavior: 4.0 (1)                  OTA: 3.32

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


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960531 :  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0645 on 960531 .
960625:  Applicant declared deserter.

 961121 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 1146 on 961121 .

970108:  Special Court-Martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86. Specif ication: Absent from unit on 96 0531 until 961121. Sentence: 100 days confinement, forfeiture of $600.00 pay per month fo r 3 months, reduction to E-1. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 970212.]

9702 12 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 970212.]

970212 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights . [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 970212.]

970212 :  Commanding Officer, First Dental Battalion, recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

970326 :  BUPERS directed the Applicant 's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19970407 by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more (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). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because he surrendered to military authorities and because he desired to remain on active duty. 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 is marred by a special court-martial conviction for the commission of a serious offense, unauthorized absence for a period of 174 days. 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 contends that his discharge is inequitable because his misconduct was an isolated incident which was precipitated by the death of his fiancée. While he may feel that his bereavement was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

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 to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. 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), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630605, 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 86 , unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01232

    Original file (ND99-01232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000713. 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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01130

    Original file (ND99-01130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Statement from applicant Letter from applicant to Board for Correction of Naval Records dated September 25, 1998 Copy of DD Form 214. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00251

    Original file (ND03-00251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant provided no documentation of his post-service for the Board to consider. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00492

    Original file (ND04-00492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00492 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040203. 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: USMC Not able to determine HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 920114 - 920405 COG Active: USN 920406 - 940821 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00238

    Original file (ND01-00238.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. No indication of appeal in the record.920201: Civil Conviction for theft; stolen license tag, driving while license suspended, faulty equipment [Extracted from CO's message].920218: Civil Conviction for driving while license suspended, faulty equipment, violation of probation for leaving the scene of an accident [Extracted from CO's message]. At...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600954

    Original file (ND0600954.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 and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)Character Reference ltr from J_ P_, Jr., Major General US Army (Retired), dated December 6, 2004 Nineteen pages from Applicant’s service record Supervisor’s Performance Planning Worksheet, dated May...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500118

    Original file (ND0500118.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 Although the discharge package is not complete, there is credible evidence to indicate that the Applicant’s service was marred by unauthorized absence, willful dereliction of duty, failure to obey orders, and provoking speech and gestures.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00367

    Original file (ND00-00367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600670

    Original file (ND0600670.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 (Member 1)Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report for September 29, 1993 to January 31, 1994 Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report for February 1, 1994 to November 11, 1994 Three pages...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00132

    Original file (ND00-00132.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900323 - 900716 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 900717 Date of Discharge: 940712 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 11 26 Inactive: None Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events...