Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00471
Original file (ND99-00471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MS2, USN
Docket No. ND99-00471

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990217, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed a private attorney as his representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000104. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks should read: “CONTINIOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 831123 UNTIL 941222”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. Whether the facts of this case support a general discharge and a characterization of misconduct.

2. Whether a vote to retain by an officer board was overturned by civilian authority on grounds of political correctness and not on the facts or law.

3. Whether a vote to retain by an officer selection board was overturned without a basis in law or fact.



 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Supplemental statement signed by the attorney
Thirty-eight pages from applicant's service record
Copy of DD Form 214.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        831123 - 910114  HON
                  USN                       910115 - 930311  HON
                 USN                       930312 - 941222  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     831104 - 831122  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 941223               Date of Discharge: 970718

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 06 26
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 30                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 29

 Highest Rate: MS1

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 4.00 (1)                OTA: 4.00        4.0 EVALS
 Performance: 4.00 (4)    Behavior: 2.25 (4)                OTA: 3.54        5.0 EVALS

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, GCM (3), SSDR (2), NDSM, SASM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation, to wit: the Navy's Sexual Harassment Instruction, violation of UCMJ Article 128 (2 specs): Assault with intent to gratify sexual desires, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Indecent language of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 month, extra duty for 45 days, reduction to MS2. No indication of appeal in the record.
970127:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
970127:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
970228:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended retention.

970429:  Commanding officer agreed with the Administrative Discharge Board's recommendation to retain applicant. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim):

970609:  CNP forwarded recommendation to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) to discharge applicant general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970612:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970618:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under 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 970718 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). 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’s first issue requested the NDRB to review the applicant’s case and determine whether the facts of this case support a general discharge and a characterization of misconduct. The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s case and found no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. A general discharge with a characterization of misconduct was, in fact, proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue requested the NDRB review the applicant’s discharge and determine whether a vote to retain by an officer board was overturned by civilian authority on grounds of political correctness and not on the facts or law. The NDRB found no impropriety in the applicant’s discharge. Specifically, although the Administrative Board and the Commanding Officer recommended retention for the applicant, and the Bureau of Naval Personnel’s order to discharge was proper. There is no evidence to suggest the reason for discharge was anything other than the applicant’s admitted misconduct. Relief denied.

The applicant’s third issue questioned whether a vote to retain by an officer selection board was overturned without a basis in law or fact. The vote to retain by the Administrative Discharge Board was forwarded as the Admin Board’s recommendation to the Commanding Officer. The Commanding Officer made his recommendation to BUPERS. BUPERS made the final determination on the proper disposition of the applicant’s case. The discharge was proper and equitable. Relief not warranted.

The applicant requested the reason for discharge to change to Secretarial Authority. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct was the reason the applicant was discharged. No other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the applicant was discharged. To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-01103

    Original file (ND01-01103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01103 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00287

    Original file (ND00-00287.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.970326: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer's NJP on 970306, for violation of UCMJ, Article 134, failure to pay just debts of child support; and Violation of UCMJ Article 134, obtaining services under the false pretenses by using another service member's BEQ telephone PIN to make long distance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00274

    Original file (ND99-00274.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. 970730: Commanding Officer, USS DAVID R. RAY request MS2 (applicant) be retained at TPU San Diego, CA for administrative separation. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01050

    Original file (ND99-01050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980903: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) approved discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. 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 first issue, he implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single...

  • 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 | 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01156

    Original file (ND03-01156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01156 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030625. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant’s statements and documents provided contend he was required to attend to his wife’s condition and could therefore not deploy.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00765

    Original file (ND99-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000417. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980206 under other than 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).Regarding the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01023

    Original file (ND00-01023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01023 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000831, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to separation from service. 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 response to applicant’s issues 1 and 3, the...