Search Decisions

Decision Text

CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 017
Original file (2014 017.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2014-017

Under Honorable Conditions, |-B-17 COMDTINST M1000.4
[-B-17 COMDTINST M1000.4

Honorable
None

None

 

TIS
Policy Implications

4 yrs, | month, 8 days
None

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant was discharged for Misconduct due to Commission of a Serious Offense in 2012. The actions
that led to the Discharge included Adultery with an officer’s wife, sending racially offensive texts to the other
parent of their children (also a CG mbr), attempting to impede an investigation, and making false statements to
obtain a Mutual assistance loan. The applicant was denied a Second chance waiver for continued service by the
Regional commander.

The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The charges committed are normally
commiserated with a Court-Martial level proceeding. The former member’s offenses were handled by way of
NJP which carries a far lesser punishment.

The applicant was notified of the intent to discharge, and the applicant was advised of the rights to an attorney.
The applicant made a statement and objected to discharge. The Board notes that the applicant has provided no
evidence before or after the discharge to refute any of the offenses.

Propriety: Discharge was proper.
Equity: Discharge was equitable.
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: No relief.

Similar Decisions

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 021

    Original file (2013 021.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1.B.17, JKA, Pattern of Misconduct, RE4 Honorable None Separation Authority should be amended to COMDTINST M1000.4, Art 1.B.17 TIS 4 yrs, 4 months, 23 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for Pattern of Misconduct due to alcohol related incidents, an inappropriate relationship and assaulting another shipmate. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The applicant received a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge...

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 006

    Original file (2013 006.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete Personnel Data Record, Summary Courts-Martial, Pretrial Agreement, and Separation Package were available for the Board to review. The applicant (and attorney brief) states that the victims were reciprocal in the physical contact, text messages, and sexual nature initiated by the applicant. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity on the merits of this case.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 053

    Original file (2013 053.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant voluntarily requested a separation for ‘The Good of the Service’ vice in lieu of the Court Martial proceedings and punishment. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The DD-214 was issued incorrectly with Article 1.A.1.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 064

    Original file (2013 064.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant is asking that the board look at the entirety of service time with regard to the Character of Service that was issued. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Propriety: Discharge was proper.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 060

    Original file (2013 060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant had a positive urinalysis result during a random testing in late 2012. The applicant’s had 10 years of service which afforded the right to an Administrative Separation Board (ASB) that occurred in the Spring of 2013. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 063

    Original file (2013 063.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The applicant was given an Honorable Discharge and the most favorable Narrative Reason for separation. Administrative change will be made to the correct Separation Authority to COMDTINST M1000.4, Art.

  • CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 031

    Original file (2013 031.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per procedure, the sample was sent to FT. Meade to test the validity of the sample. The Coast Guard has zero tolerance for drug abuse. The General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge is equitable.

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 038

    Original file (2014 038.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With regard to the Narrative Reason for Separation, the applicant had previously been to outpatient treatment in 2009 for a self-referral. On the equity standard, the board referred to ALCOAST 125/10 to make a recommendation on the Narrative Reason (NR) for his separation. Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: Partial relief is granted based on post-policy issued in ALCOAST 125/10: Separation Authority: COMDTINST M1000.4, ART 1.B.15 SPD code: JND Narrative Reason...

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 046

    Original file (2014 046.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. Coast Guard policy prescribes no higher than a General, Under Honorable Conditions character of service for individuals separated as a result of violating the Coast Guard’s drug policy. The General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge is equitable.

  • CG | DRB | 2014 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2014 005

    Original file (2014 005.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete Personnel Data Record and Separation Package were available for the Board to review. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. tn reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence (to include evidence submitted by the Applicant) to rebut the presumption.