Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600815
Original file (ND0600815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CS3, USN
Docket No. ND06-00815

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060531 . 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 20070322 . 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 a serious offense .
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE DUTY FROM 940419 UNTIL 030413 ”. 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


Applicant Issues
The Applicant is claiming quality of service warrants a discharge upgrade to honorable.

The Applicant is claiming post service equity warrants a discharge upgrade.

The Applicant claims her ability to serve was impaired because of family problems, personal problems and financial problems.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant, dtd April 11, 2006 (2 pgs)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)
Letter from Applicant, dtd March 1, 2006 (2 pgs)
Letter of Recommendation from Reverend T_ P_, dtd April 1, 2006
Reference Letter from S_ P_, dtd March 15, 2006 (2 pgs)
Reference Letter from T_ W_, dtd February 1, 2006
Character Reference Letter from N_ R_, dtd March 31, 2006
 Letter of Recommendation from R_ L_, dtd April 26, 2006
Letter from R_ L. E_ Jr, dtd April 10, 2006
Letter from S_ O_ (Applicant’s mother) (2 pgs)
Letter from S_ C_ (Applicant’s aunt), dtd March 21, 2006 (2 pgs)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19940406 - 19940418       COG
         Active: USN      19940419 - 19991114       HON
         Active: USN      19991115 – 20030413      HON

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20030414              Date of Discharge: 20050328

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 1 11 14
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 3 1
Years Contracted: 6

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 65

Highest Rate: CS2

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 .0 ( 1 )              Behavior: 3 .0 ( 1 )                 OTA: 3 . 43

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


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

0 30414 :  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.
0 50207 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 121 : Larceny and Wrongful appropriation .
 Award: R estriction and extra duty for 45 days (suspended for 6 months) , reduction to E- 4 . No indication of appeal in the record.
0 50304 :  GCMCA, Commander, Navy Region Northeast directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct 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 20050328 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 is claiming quality of service warrants a discharge upgrade 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. 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 was marred by one nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violation of Article 121 (Larceny) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of her service, reflects her willful failure to meet the requirements of her contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of her characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant is claiming post service equity warrants a discharge upgrade. 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 sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. Relief denied.

The Applicant claims her ability to serve was impaired because of family problems, personal problems and financial problems. While she may feel that her ability to serve was impaired because of family, personal and financial problems, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

It must be further noted that the administrative separation package was missing from the record. The NDRB made an attempt to secure the administrative separation package and was unsuccessful. Because the administrative separation package is missing, the government presumed regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. 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 02 until 25 April 2005, 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 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600983.

    Original file (ND0600983..rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00983 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060725. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was equitable, but not proper (B and C).On 19910625 the Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and her discharge was recommended by competent medical authority. The documentation and statements provided by the Applicant were not sufficient to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600793

    Original file (ND0600793.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE), authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-146, formerly 3630620. The Applicant requests upgrade in order to obtain educational benefits and because he needs a better job to “support” his “family.” The Veterans Administration determines...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600413

    Original file (ND0600413.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 ” 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 | ND0600728

    Original file (ND0600728.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 post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the discharge at that time. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600497

    Original file (ND0600497.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). Decisional Issues: Equity – Misdiagnosis Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)Letter from Applicant, dtd February 9, 2006 Excerpts from Service Record (2 pgs)Medical Documentation from Charleston Naval Hospital, dtd...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600476

    Original file (MD0600476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: In that Private First Class R_ B. S_ (Applicant), U.S. Marine Corps, on active duty, did, on or about 000622, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: Golf Battery, 2d Battalion, 11 th Marines, 1 st Marine Division, located at Camp Pendleton, CA, and did remain so absent until on or about...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600729

    Original file (ND0600729.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040218 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600769

    Original file (ND0600769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040615 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600802

    Original file (MD0600802.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 “ Admin Disch Board. The factual basis for this recommendation was illegal use of amphetamines/methamphetamines.920925: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that such misconduct warranted separation, and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501087

    Original file (MD0501087.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). st Radio Battalion, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.950512: Applicant submitted statement, “APPEAL OF CHARACTERIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION” to Commanding General, 1 You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other...