Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01024
Original file (ND99-01024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01024

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990726, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before a traveling panel closest to Pittsburgh, PA. The applicant did not list any 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 000411. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. Because of the recent change in policy regarding homosexuality in the military, I believe that my discharge was unfair.

 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):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     860404 - 860504  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 860505               Date of Discharge: 880923

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 85

 Highest Rate: MM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.80 (1)    Behavior: 3.60 (1)                OTA: 3.60

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

860505:  Applicant answered no to question 36c on DD Form 1966/3, AUG 85.

880601:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements.
         Award: Oral reprimand and reduction to MMFN. No indication of appeal in the record.
880602:  Psychiatry Evaluation: Clinic psychiatric diagnosis: Homosexuality, by history.
880726:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of convenience of the government by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by your self-admission of engaging in homosexual acts and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
880727:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of homosexuality and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Fireman (applicant) professed that he was involved in homosexual activities for the past two years after an altercation with his roommate. He was referred to the Psychiatric Department, Naval Hospital, Groton, CT who inturn clinically diagnosed him as homosexual by history, enclosure (5). Fireman (applicant) waived his right to an administrative board, therefore recommend he be separated from the naval service with a service record warranted discharge; enclosures (1) through (5) are forwarded in support of subject discharge.

880826:          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.
880912:  CNMPC 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 880923 under other than 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 issue states: “ Because of the recent change in policy regarding homosexuality in the military, I believe that my discharge was unfair.” The NDRB found the applicant’s issue without merit. The applicant was separated for misconduct/ commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 107: False official statement rather than homosexuality. Relief not warranted.

 The following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The applicant must be aware that there is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS 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 DischargeReview, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01113

    Original file (ND03-01113.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    920929: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00166

    Original file (ND01-00166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00166 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is denied.The applicant’s second issue states: “The truth is I had requested 4 times with a request chit to be discharged from the service prior to my Captains Masts. My request is to have an honorable discharge, Thank you.” The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s service record and found no impropriety or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00969

    Original file (ND02-00969.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as submitted Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910326 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00852

    Original file (ND02-00852.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]960208: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the 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).Issue 1: The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities as requested in the issue. Evidence of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00281

    Original file (ND99-00281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :900801: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under Active Mariner Program.910602: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order. 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 found this issue to be without merit. There was nothing in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00607

    Original file (ND03-00607.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 931212: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. While Applicant may feel that this alleged investigation was the reason for her discharge, upon her own request for discharge due to homosexual tendencies, the Applicant was properly dual processed for discharge by reason of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00340

    Original file (ND99-00340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 860212 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00957

    Original file (ND00-00957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) As evidenced by his supporting documentation, this former member further opines that his post service conduct has been sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board’s clemency relief as authorized under provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 9.3. Regarding the applicant’s request for a reason for discharge change, the Board found the reason assigned, Misconduct- Commission of a Serious Offense, most accurately describes the reason for discharge. PART IV...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00245

    Original file (ND01-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of debt collection notice Letter from applicant dated December 15,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...