Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00065
Original file (ND99-00065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-HM3, USN
Docket No. ND99-00065

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 981013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested 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 990920. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “3630605” vice “3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. OTH was improper because the domestic dispute had nothing to do with a spotless military performance.
My family and I were told directly that no military action would be taken against me. This statement came directly from Commander N_ thru HM1 B_, Company Legal Officer, Charlie Surgical Company, 2 nd Medical Battalion. The decision that 1 st time offenders, who sought help, would not be punished, was based on the fact that in only 1 weeks time, 7 domestic abuse cases had crossed his desk.

2. I am requesting that I am granted an Honorable Discharge, and that my rank and benefits are restored.

3. I had fully planned to make my enlistment in the US Navy my career, and I would feel honored to be able to continue my enlistment.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from applicant dated October 2, 1998
Copy of Letter of Commendation from January 1994 to July 1995
Copy of Certificate of Commendation dated 7 January 1997
Copy of Certificate of Appointment dated June 16, 1997
Letter from applicant's mother to President Clinton dated April 10, 1998

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930325 - 930623  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930624               Date of Discharge: 971216

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 05 23
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (9 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 67

 Highest Rate: HM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (2)    Behavior: 4.00 (3)                OTA: 4.00 (4.0 evals)

 Performance: 3.75 (4)    Behavior: 3.25 (4)                OTA: 3.20 (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NDSM, HSM, JMU

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970226:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Family violence (child abuse).), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
970227:  Mental Health Services Outpatient report: Diagnoses: Axis I: 1. Physical abuse of child, (daughter), 2. Partner (wife), relational problem. Axis II: Borderline personality traits. Axis III: no general medical condition.

971028:  Civil Conviction: [General Court of Justice, Onslow, North Carolina] for child abuse on February 10, 1997.
 Sentence: Fined $695.00, supervised probation for 48 months.
971124:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
971125:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
971126:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

971209:  Staff Judge Advocate, 2d Force Service Support group reviewed separation proceedings and finds them sufficient in law and fact.

971209:  Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group, Camp Lejeune, NC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971216 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).

The applicant states that his discharge of “ OTH was improper because the domestic dispute had nothing to do with a spotless military performance. My family and I were told directly that no military action would be taken against me.” In response to the applicant’s issues, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable. The applicant was convicted in a General Court of Justice in Onslow, North Carolina of child abuse. When a member commits misconduct which resulted in, or had the potential to result in death, or serious bodily injury (this can include spouse and child abuse incidents), administrative separation processing is mandatory. The discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of these issues.

The applicant is reminded that the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 14 Mar 98, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 128, for assault consummated by battery upon child under age 16 if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial.

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 obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

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
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00955

    Original file (ND99-00955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with (IAW) OPNAVINST 5530.4b, part of my command's responsibilities were to have me immediately screened for alcohol dependency and to help me. While a patient in recovery, I became a role model for others, completed it ahead of time and have been in control of myself since (enclosure 1, pages 1-7 are performance comments from supervisors).2: After having endured a court martial on December 16th of 1997 and an administrative board on January 30th of 1998, both recommending, my...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00915

    Original file (ND04-00915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00915 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040512. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable the reason for the discharge be changed to either Separation, or Discharge, or Administrative. “On July 18,1997 I was discharged from the Navy with a Discharge Character of General Under Honorable Conditions and a Narrative Reason for Separation as Misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00171

    Original file (ND04-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I had a good service record before the allegations & should speak highly as my personal integrity.”Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." ]000919: Applicant informed by Commanding Officer of Family Advocacy Program Case Review Committee’s determination of substantiation of child...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01009

    Original file (ND00-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, each time I did someone told the Squadron Commander that I was being abusive to my wife. In response to the applicant’s issue 3, the applicant was given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because the Navy took the applicant’s service record into account when they characterized his discharge. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01279

    Original file (ND03-01279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant’s continued attendance of the Men’s Therapy Group.941007: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0700 to 1455, 940929, violation of UCMJ Article 128: Unlawfully punch and kicked wife and struck her for about 20 minutes. 970303: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00365

    Original file (ND00-00365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 870413 - 930603 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870325 - 870412 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930604 Date of Discharge: 980602 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 11 28 Inactive: None 980522: Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00411

    Original file (ND00-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MM1 (applicant) went to CO's NJP on board USS MCKEE (AS-41) 96NOV27, for Article 107, false official statement to XO, USS MCKEE, regarding his alleged affair with SK3 H_ and the adultery charge. In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board found that the applicant’s Commanding Officer has the authority to recommend administrative separation for any individual in his command who had committed misconduct. This is a non-decisional issue for the Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01165

    Original file (ND99-01165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. This discharge would have been Honorable. He was properly discharged for commission of a serious offense based on his civilian conviction.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01083

    Original file (ND04-01083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I have included copies of the paperwork my legal officer submitted prior to my discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Nineteen pages from Applicant’s service record Sentencing Order from Circuit Court of Virginia Beach, VA PART...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | n0300223

    Original file (n0300223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. 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...