Author: CAP
Last saved by: Department of the Navy
Company: NCPB

Docket No. ND03-00542

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

 ex-ETSR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00542

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20030213.  The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Convenience of the government.  The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040114.  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 and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1.  “Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge
I received awards and decorations
I received letters of recommendation
My record of promotion showed I was generally a good service member
My record of AWOL/UA indicates only minor or isolated offences
My use of alcohol impaired my ability to serve.”

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):

	Inactive: USNR (DEP)	810610 - 810722	COG
	Active:   USN 			810723 - 850804	HON
		   USN			850805 - 910624	HON

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  910625		Date of Discharge:  930225

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  08  01
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  32			Years Contracted:  6

Education Level:  14			AFQT:  78

Highest Rate:  ET1

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance:  4.00 (1)	Behavior:  4.00 (1)		OTA:  4.00

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  BER, NDSM, SSDR, GCM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

920205:	Special Court Martial.
	Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, (3 specs):
	Specification 1: With intent to defraud the insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, set fire to an automobile on 911114.
	Specification 2: Make a false statement on 911115.
	Specification 3: Make a false statement on 911115.
	Findings: to Charge I and specifications thereunder, guilty.
	Sentence:  CHL for 4 months, forfeiture of $500 per month for 6 months, reduction to ETSR, bad conduct discharge.
	CA 970317: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
	SA: see SSPCMO.

920211:	Applicant signed appellate rights statement.

921113:	NMCCMR:  The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

930225:	SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, bad conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19930225 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.  That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and (B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  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).

Issue 1.  With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (C, Part IV).  The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.  The NDRB found the Applicant’s service record and documentation provided by the Applicant absent of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his 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 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT‑MARTIAL.

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 134, fraud.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

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 accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive 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 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	 

.

The remaining portion of this document is divided into 4 Parts: Part I - Applicant’s Issues and Documentation, Part II - Summary of Service, Part III – Rationale for Decision and Pertinent Regulation/Law, Part IV - Information for the Applicant.
INDEX: