Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600880
Original file (ND0600880.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AKAA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00880

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060622 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and I’d like to have my RE Entry Code upgraded from an RE-4 to an RE-1. 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 070329 . 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 s ervice 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 .
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214. Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read: “01 00 18,” Block 2 5 , Separation Authority , should read: “ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 , ” and Block 26, Separation Code, should read: “JKQ. ” 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 Issues

Equity: Post-service conduct mitigates characterization of service.

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant , was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4)
Character Reference ltr from S_ L. M_, Principal, Fresh Start Academy, dated March 29, 2006
 Character Reference ltr from T_ R_ , dated February 20, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20010419 - 20010426       COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20010427              Date of Discharge: 20020514

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 1 00 18
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Entry: 20

Years Contracted: 4 ( 12 -month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                  AFQT: 54

Highest Rate: AKAA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 .0 ( 1 )                        Behavior: 1 .0 ( 1 )                  OTA: 2 . 5 0
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

011203 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specs):
         Specification 1: Failure to go to appointed place of duty on 011010 .
         Specification 2: Absent from appointed place of duty on 011012 until 011015.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 : Underage drinking.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 2 00 .00 per month for 2 month s, restriction and extra duty for 15 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
011217:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s nonjudicial punishment on 011213 for failure to go to appointed place of duty and underage drinking.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

 020125:  Retention Warning. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 020424.]

 020419 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 1 1 7 : Provoking speeches or gestures on 020325.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault consummated by battery on 020325.
         Award: Forfeiture of $ 578.00 per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
020419 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct, misconduct-commission of a serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure.

020419 :  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.

020424 :  Commanding Officer , USS Abraham Lincoln, direct ed discharge by reason of misconduct-patter of misconduct, misconduct-commission of a serious offense, and alcohol rehabilitation failure with a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).
020514:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date with separation code HKQ (misconduct – commission of a serious offense , board waived).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20020514 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 dischar ge was proper and equitable (C and D).

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 2 retention warnings and 2 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86, 117, 128 and 134 of the UCMJ. The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violations of Articles 117 and 128 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged at a special or general court-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.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

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 or inequity 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 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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, 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 s 107, False official statement, and 128, Assault.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00738

    Original file (MD03-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: UA from 020424-020504 (11 days); Spec 2: UA from 020718-020816 (29 days). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable characterization of service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00878

    Original file (ND04-00878.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 PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20030725 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501048

    Original file (ND0501048.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 record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Only the service record was reviewed. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00822

    Original file (ND03-00822.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AKAA, USN Docket No. ND03-00822 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030414. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00273

    Original file (ND04-00273.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00273 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031201. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 000910: Arrest and Booking Report: Member arrested by Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office for driving Under Influence of Alcohol (DUI).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00046

    Original file (ND00-00046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980728 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501558

    Original file (ND0501558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged from the Navy under a general (under honorable conditions) discharge characterization as a result of “the commission of a serious offense”. The command has provided various forms of assistance and help for his alcohol problems; however, AA N_ (Applicant) continues to have alcohol related incidents.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040820 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600770

    Original file (ND0600770.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960227 – 19960610 COG Active: None Period of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01146

    Original file (MD03-01146.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. 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. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501449

    Original file (ND0501449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.020530: 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 by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions).020603: Civil Court Judgement Information. The Applicant contends that his discharge characterization was “based on a dropped...