Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600795
Original file (ND0600795.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EMFN, USN
Docket No. ND06-00795

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060509 . 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 designated Veterans Affairs as the 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, 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 ization of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Honorable Conditions (General) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct .
The NDRB did note administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 2 4 , Character of Service, should read: “ UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) . ” The Commander, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, TN, will be notified, recommending the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued, as appropriate.


PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Is sues
None

Documentation
In addition to the service record, 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)     19891128 - 19900325       COG
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19900326              Date of Discharge: 19921005

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 2 0 6 1 0 (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 2 days
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 20

Years Contracted: 4
Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 95

Highest Rate: EMFN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.6 (2 )                        Behavior: 3.3 (2)                 OTA: 3 . 3 0
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon , Joint Meritorious Unit Award


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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910907:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absent without leave.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 400. 00 per month for 1 month . Forfeiture suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
920311:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order or regulation.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 107 (2 specs): False official statements.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 250. 00 per month for 1 month. No indication of appeal in the record.
920610:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disciplinary infractions or misconduct with military or civil authorities as evidence by your captain’s mast on the following dates: 910907 and 920311.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 920623 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey an order.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 300. 00 per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No t appeal ed.

920701 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer’s nonjudicial punishments conducted on 910907, 920311 and 920623.

920708 :  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
920904 :  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to pattern of misconduct , that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a under honorable conditions (general).
920911 :  Commanding Officer recommended discharge by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.

920930 :  BUPERS directed the Applicant 's discharge with a under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.

Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19921005 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of under honorable conditions (general) . 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 requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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 a retention warning and three nonjudicial punishments proceedings for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (failure to obey an other lawful order), and 107 (false official statement) of the UCMJ. Violations of Articles 92 and 107 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized at courts martial. 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 requests upgrade in order to obtain educational benefits. 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.

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. 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, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A 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 92 (failure to obey an other lawful order) and 107 (false official statement).

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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01191

    Original file (ND04-01191.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01191 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040722. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00760

    Original file (ND02-00760.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. Maturity is a thing of greatness in which I do understand now. No indication of appeal in the record.920207: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of lawful general regulation, to wit: Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00105

    Original file (ND01-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (3pgs) Response Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Congressional correspondence, dated 22 March 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: NONE Inactive: NONE Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890412 Date of Discharge: 920427 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500092

    Original file (ND0500092.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, and the reason for discharge be changed to “convenience of Government.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction in the performance of duties.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00743

    Original file (ND99-00743.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00743 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990505, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 971205: Commander, Amphibious Group TWO directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00403

    Original file (ND02-00403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSR, USN Docket No. Award: Confinement for 10 days, forfeiture of $563 per month for 1 months, reduction to E-1 and restriction for 20 days.911213: To confinement.911222: From confinement to full duty.920110: Commander, Submarine Group 9 notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500875

    Original file (ND0500875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the 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 | ND0600941

    Original file (ND0600941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.. PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Decisional Issues Equity: Punishment too harsh Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214...