Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01050
Original file (ND99-01050.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-OSSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01050

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990802, 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 000417. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).


The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 25, Separation Authority should read: “NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142” vice “MILPERSMAN 3630600”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. I feel that my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in 8 years of service with no adverse action.

2. I plead guilty to this offense because I wanted to save my family the hardship of a lengthy trial and possibly a worst brig sentence. My wife and I made the conscience decision to take a shorter brig sentence. If I would leave the military quietly. My understanding was I would receive no worst than a general discharge.


 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                        890718 - 930715  HON
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     871024 - 880613  ELS
USNR (DEP)      881128 - 890717  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930716               Date of Discharge: 981005

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 02 20
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 59

 Highest Rate: OS2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (2)    Behavior: 4.00 (2)                OTA: 4.00        4.0 evals
 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 4.00 (2)                OTA: 3.64        5.0 evals

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: CAR, NUC, NER, GCM (2), NDSM, SASM, SSDR (2), KLM, Letter of Commenation

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980611:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification: Derelict in the performance of duties on 31Jan98.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: Indecent assault upon Storekeeper Third Class, a person not his wife by placing his hands inside her uniform and fondling her breasts, with intent to gratify his lust and sexual desire on 31Jan98.
         Findings: to Charge I and II specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 40 days, reduction to OSSN.
         CA 980617: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

980709:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980709:          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.
980714:  Applicant released from confinement.

 980714:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

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.

980915:  BUPERS 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 981005 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).

In the applicant’s first issue, he implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

 The separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual. The applicant was processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, is clearly documented in the service record. On 9 July 1998, the applicant was advised that he was being recommended for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. On the same day the applicant was advised of his rights. He summarily waived these rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation. If the applicant did not understand an aspect of his court-martial or his discharge process, the applicant should have asked the question at that time. 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 issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby. The Board’s opinion is that the applicant was given all appropriate due process, and relief is denied.

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 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 | ND01-00020

    Original file (ND01-00020.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to the applicant’s issue, the applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed an "isolated incident". At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00046

    Original file (ND00-00046.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980728 general (under 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).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00827

    Original file (ND00-00827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980709: 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 Naval Air Station, Norfolk Incident Complaint Report of 971129 for drinking under the age of 21 in violation of COMNAVBASENORVA/SOPA (ADMIN) HAMPINST 5400.1F; Naval Base, Norfolk Incident Complaint Reports of 970901 and 970905 for larceny of a car cover and larceny of four tires and rims; Naval Base,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01005

    Original file (ND99-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 116. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980828 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01506

    Original file (ND03-01506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Per reference (a) and (b), I authorize that he be separated from the naval service by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, and that his discharge be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).981111: Commanding Officer, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00599

    Original file (ND01-00599.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (2pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 950413 Date of Discharge: 980710 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00168

    Original file (ND01-00168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.In response to applicant’s issue 3 and 4, while the applicant’s enlisted performance averages were fair, they, and the applicant’s “acts of merit”, do not exculpate him from his violations of UCMJ Articles 121 (larceny) and Article 123 (forgery). This is not an issue for which the Board will grant relief.In response to applicant’s issue 7, the Board does not accept alcohol abuse as a factor sufficient to exculpate the applicant from the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01005

    Original file (ND01-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01005 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010730, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01319

    Original file (ND02-01319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thank you for your time and consideration.Yours Truly, Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 961016 - 970902 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970903 Date of Discharge: 000120 Length of Service (years,...