Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00713
Original file (ND99-00713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LT, USN
Docket No. ND99-00713

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990503, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.
In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the naval discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000207. 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: SECNAVINST 1920.6A and BUPERS ORDER 1887

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority, should read: "SECNAVINST 1920.6A and BUPERS ORDER 1887" vice "BUPERS ORDER 1887" and Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “MISCONDUCT” vice “COMMISSION OF SERIOUS OFFENSE”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The package I am submitting consists of my transcript from Johns Hopkins University, my transcript from the University of California at Berkeley school of law, my resume, and a full package that describes the incident that led to me receiving a General under honorable condition discharge.

2. I hope that the package clearly sets forth the reasons why I think the decision that led to me receiving a General under honorable condition discharge was in error.

3. I would also like the state for the record, that I have been involved in the area of labor employment litigation as a plaintiff's lawyer supporting women's rights to assert sexual harassment causes of action. In this role, I have learned a great deal about the treatment women received at work and have become extremely sensitive to the issues pertaining to women in the employment arena.

4. Throughout my new career in this field, I have received a great deal of positive criticism concerning my interaction with women who have been mistreated. I believe that his experience has led to me changing into an individual who has earned a great deal about the working relationships between males and females and the proper ways to treat women.

5. I would respectfully assert that this training and changing is one of the reasons why my discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

6. Additionally, since my discharge from the Navy, I have been involved in volunteering my time towards efforts such as Teen Court and a Homeless shelter in Pensacola. I hope that this will also be considered in deciding whether or not to grant this request to upgrade my discharge from a General under honorable condition discharge to an honorable discharge. I have volunteered numerous hours towards this program which is aimed at rehabilitating offender youths. These are young teenagers who have violated the law in a minor way which enables the local district attorney to allow them to go to teen court rather than appear before a formal magistrate in juvenile court. I have been involved in the program on a bi-weekly basis, and I have trained the teenagers who act as the defendant's lawyer and the prosecuting lawyer in various aspects of the law, and I have sat as the teen court Judge.

7. Additionally, I have been involved in my local church, the Gateway Church of Jesus Christ, the Waterfront Mission (a local charity to help the poor), the P_ school of ballet, and environmental volunteer agencies such as the underwater cleanup fund and the naturalist society.


 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter to Applicant from the BCNR dtd Mar 30, 1999
Copy of Applicant's application to BCNR dtd Feb 5, 1999
Copy of Applicant's issues dtd 5 Feb 99 to BCNR (same provided to NDRB)
Applicant's college transcript
Applicant's Resume
Applicant's ltr to the F_ Board of Bar Examiner's dtd May 15, 1998
26 pages of documents pertaining to the misconduct
7 Fitness Reports of applicant
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and Citation
Applicant's Statement dtd 10 Jan 97 concerning the incident
Applicant's Spouse ltr concerning the incident
Applicant's ltr to the Rules Counsel
Applicant's ltr to the N_ J_ Board of Bar Examiners dtd Jan 28, 1998
Character Reference ltr from CDR D_ E. W_, CHC, USN dtd 19 Feb 97
Character Reference ltr from LCDR D.L. C_, NC, USN dtd Jun 18, 1995

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission/Appointment: 940516  Date of Discharge: 970731

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: MD+ 2yr Law School               AFQT: N/A

 Highest Rate: LT

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NAM, OSR, Pistol Sharpshooter

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A and BUPERS ORDER 1887.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940403:  Reported active duty for training at Officer Indoctrination School.

940513:  Reported to Naval Justice School, Newport, RI.

950516:  Accepted appointment as LTJG.

 970212:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 133 (2 Specs): conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
         Award: Punitive Letter of Reprimand. Waived right of appeal in the record.

970213:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued.

970223:  Applicant submitted statement regarding Punitive Letter of Reprimand, acknowledged that he believed he received a fair hearing at the NJP and requested he be allowed to complete tour of duty.

970225:  NJP action reported to BUPERS
970425:  BUPERS notified applicant of the initiation of administrative show cause proceedings. [EXTRACTED FROM BUPERS LTR TO SECNAV DATED JUN 12, 1997.]

970422:  Applicant submitted a request for release from active duty and requested that he receive an Honorable characterization of service.

970506:  Applicant acknowledged his rights and indicated that he desired to tender his resignation requested and attached his letter of 22Apr97 which requested a release from active duty and an honorable characterization of service.

970514:  CO, Naval Legal Service, Northwest Pacific, endorsed applicant's letter and forwarded to BUPERS recommending the approval of applicant's request to be released from active duty with a characterization of Service as Honorable.

970612:  BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970624:  SECNAV (M&RA) approved applicant's discharge as recommended.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 970731 with a 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 issues and enclosed documentation were considered by the NDRB. The Board found the discharge awarded to be proper and equitable. Additionally, the NDRB considered the applicant’s post service conduct and did not find compelling evidence that the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded. Relief not warranted.

 While the NDRB did not find sufficient reason to upgrade the applicant’s discharge based on a documentary review, the applicant is highly encouraged to make a personal appearance before the Board to present his case. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A of 21 November 1983 (Administrative separation of Officers), establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.
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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00052

    Original file (ND00-00052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00052 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991014, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00874

    Original file (ND02-00874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00874 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant understood that a discharge under honorable conditions (general) is not the highest qualitative type of separation, and that while he may be entitled to the major portion of veteran's rights and benefits presently authorized for former officers whose service has been similar to his own, should any present...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01051

    Original file (ND00-01051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects an "honorable" discharge instead of "general under honorable conditions" as directed by the Secretary of the Navy. The Board's review was based upon applicant receiving a "General". The applicant did not provide any of these documents.

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01118

    Original file (MD99-01118.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    990511: Commanding Officer, MATSG, recommended that the Show Cause Authority convene and Administrative Separation Board, stating: "While the applicant's Navy's Chain of command supports his retention, "I do not", and recommended convening a board to appropriately characterize the applicant's discharge.990615: CMC recommended to the SECNAV that applicant be discharged with a General (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00751

    Original file (MD01-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's representative requested that the reason for separation be change to "Secretarial Authority". Dear members of the board: The following issues are the reasons my discharge should be upgraded from a general discharge to an honorable discharge. Additionally, advised applicant is submitting a letter of resignation and requested leave awaiting separation.990730: Applicant tendered a resignation of commission in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00575

    Original file (ND99-00575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980312: CHNAVPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant's resignation be approved and the request for separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial be directed with a General characterization. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00684

    Original file (ND99-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00684 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: did, at or near Kingsville, TX, on or about 11 Jan 93 wrongfully appropriate dependent travel benefits payments, of a value of $909.70, the property of the U.S. Government. 961004: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00488

    Original file (MD00-00488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00488 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000303, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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 Board found that the applicant was commissioned 820515 and served 2 years and 11 months of active duty time. The Secretary of the Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01191

    Original file (ND01-01191.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.961216: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse and that the least favorable characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.961218: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.970107: Commanding officer recommended to the Senior Member of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00080

    Original file (ND02-00080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910814: CO, NAVHOSP Portsmouth, reported Applicant's NJP to BUPERS.910719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91 and the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.910722: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right...