Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600701
Original file (ND0600701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ATAR, USN
Docket No. ND06-00701

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060502 . 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 20070308. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that the Applicant’s discharge was improper and inequitable. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the discharge shall change to: HONORABLE/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY, authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-164, Separation Code “JFF. ”






PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues
         Equity : No basis for discharge
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)
Letter to The Honorable D_ E. L_, Member, United States House of Representatives from E. A. W_, Congressional Affairs, Navy Personnel Command, dated February 13, 2006
 Applicant ’s general discharge time-line, dated April 26, 2006 (4 pages)
 Applicant ’s worksheet for separation, dated May 10, 2005 (2 pages)
Twenty-four pages from Applicant ’s service record
Letter of Recommendation from P_ P_, Counselor, Sheldon High School, dated March 28, 2006
Letter of Recommendation form J_ M_, Director of Bands, Sheldon High School dated March 23, 2006
Letter from Applicant to The Honorable D_ E. L_, Member, United States House of Representatives, dated May 24, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20040324 - 20040622       COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20040623              Date of Discharge: 20050509

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 17 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 36 day s
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 1 9

Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 70

Highest Rate: ATAR

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA                     Behavior: NA               OTA: NA
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):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Articl e 1910-142.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

041202 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 : Unauthoriz ed absence - less than 24 hours .
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 278.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
041211 :  Applicant to unauthorized absence . [Extracted from DD Form 214 .]

050117 :  Applicant from unauthorized absence. [Extr acted from DD Form 214 .]

050301:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due commission of a serious offense.
050301:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

050408:  Commander, Strike-Fighter Wing, directed the Applicant’s general discharge 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 20050509 by reason of misconduct – 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 im proper and in equitable (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).
Equity – No basis for discharge: The Appl icant contends that upon reporting Oceana Naval Base, he was “ given a direct order from the watch quarterdeck to remain in or near [his] room to wait for an escort to P ersonnel S upport D etachment .” The Applicant explains, in his application for review , that he remained in or near his room for period in excess of 30 days , waiting for an escort to arrive .

By regulation, a discharge shall be deemed proper, unless it is determined that an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion has substantially prejudiced the rights of the Applicant. The Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense . At the time of review, the Applicant’s service record did not contain the Administrative Discharge Package. The Recorder of Record contacted the Applicant’s previous command for the missing documents. The Board received and considered the Applicant’s discharge package as well as a string of email correspondence, discussing the Applicant’s unauthorized absence status , how to proceed, and which command should take action. In the Board’s opinion, t hese emails support the Applicant’s contention that he did report for duty . They also highlighted that fact that the gaining command either did not have or did not follow proper procedures for joining new members while the command is deployed . Seemingly, this error in procedure caused the Applicant to be absent from his unit in excess of 30 days. The Board was convinced that th i s error w as prejudicial to the rights of the Applicant since h e was administratively processed for separation on a basis that was not solely his fault. Using this rationale, the Board concluded that there was no basis for discharge and unanimously voted to change the Applicant’s discharge to Honorable by reason of Secretarial Authority. R elief granted .
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 26 April 05 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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) .

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 | ND0600014

    Original file (ND0600014.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). Comments: IAW OPNAVINST 5350.4A SNM has no potential for future service and should be processed for separation.900405: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to drug abuse,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600343

    Original file (ND0600343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600838

    Original file (ND0600838.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.960910: Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. Applicant notified that least favorable characterization of servicepossible was as under other than honorable conditions.Not dated: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00342

    Original file (ND04-00342.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    021016: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions). There is no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the conduct of the Applicant’s Administrative Separation Board. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600815

    Original file (ND0600815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. ” 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00411

    Original file (ND04-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION (Attached is the completion of Impact class Document 2. 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:Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600367

    Original file (ND0600367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it requested that the Board consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case, to include the impetuosity of his youth, and grant a favorable decision.If a favorable decision can not be granted at this time, it is requested that the Applicant be scheduled for a future Hearing.DAV” Documentation In addition to the service record, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00861

    Original file (ND00-00861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00861 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000705, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Another mitigating circumstance at the time of my discharge was the indication by the legal officer involved that there would not be a material difference in perception between an honorable discharge and a general discharge under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00813

    Original file (ND04-00813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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) 010117 - 010715 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 010716 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00162

    Original file (ND02-00162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00162 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011210, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and that the reenlistment code be changed. The Board found no documentation to support the applicant’s claim that he was unfairly denied medical treatment. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.