Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01102
Original file (ND99-01102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-PNSN, USN
Docket No. ND99-01102

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990812, 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 000420. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I C______ R. F_____ ask the board to upgrade my discharge due too the fact that I was advised by military counsel to waive my court martial for a UA offense & a disrespect offense to avoid brig time. Because at that time due to serious family problems I was not exercising any good judgement. As my service records should reflect I received a Honorable discharge from the U.S.Army in 95, and I only want to serve my country at the time of my offense I was under serious stress and was unable to cope with it in a mature fashion. I have served my country since age 17 and at age 24 I would like to be able to serve again.

 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: USNG              911216 - 940225  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950201 - 950206  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950207               Date of Discharge: 971015

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 08 09
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 66

 Highest Rate: PNSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 26

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961224:  UA from 961224-961230 [6days/S].
         
970725:  Charges preferred to court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86: (4 Specifications), Spec 1: Absent himself from his organization 970114-970128 [14days/S], Spec 2: Absent himself from his organization from 970417-970421 [4days/S], Spec 3: Without authority go from watch with intent to abandon on or about 1400, 970510; Spec 4: Without authority absent himself from his organization from 1325, 970511 to 1200, 970513; violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 91: Disrespectful in language to a Chief Petty Officer by saying to him, "You don't have to do shit., hang up on the motherfucker. Who do you think you are, calling my home and telling her, she has to come in? Who the fuck do you think you are calling our house and telling her she is 'UA', when she has a chit? I don't give a fuck who you are, she's not coming in. What the fuck can you do to me? Fuck you, I am not telling her shit," or word to that effect., violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 107: With intent to deceive sign an official record, to wit: Bachelor Officer Quarters duty log book indicating BOQ II all secure for the time period 0800 to 1900, 970510, which was totally false; violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 117: Wrongfully use provoking and reproachful words, to wit: "You're that motherfucker that gave my girlfriend a hard time. I'll kick your motherfucking ass. Don't let me catch you off base, or I going to take care of you. You're one of those punk motherfuckers. I'll see you around motherfucker" or words to that effect towards Hospital Second Class M____ A. A_______, U.S.Navy.

970910:  A pplicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense(s) with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 91, 107, 117, and 86 (4 Specifications). The applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

970917:  The commanding officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 971015 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (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 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. Furthermore, the applicant did not submit any supporting documentation that showed that his personal problems were of sufficient magnitude that they could not be resolved through standard military channels or by the applicant’s chain of command. Relief is therefore denied.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

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 St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00048

    Original file (ND00-00048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00048 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Record Check from Department of Veterans Affairs Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00896

    Original file (ND01-00896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00896 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010626, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. (Copies enclosed) Toward the end of my basic training approximately 23 days to graduation I had to report for a special physical examination.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00879

    Original file (ND03-00879.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00879 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My first incident of Non-Judicial Punishment was the result of a port call in March of 1998 the ship had in Cairns.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01234

    Original file (ND03-01234.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. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00722

    Original file (ND00-00722.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 881004 - 920219 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880713 - 881003 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920220 Date of Discharge: 961010 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 07 12 Inactive: None 960703: Vacate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00014

    Original file (ND01-00014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The situation was; in May of 1998 I was accepted into the ROTC Program at Purdue University in Indiana. The Board considers the applicant’s 447 days of unauthorized absence to be a very serious “incident”. The applicant

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01188

    Original file (MD01-01188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-01188 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010917, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I'm G-6 and we don't do this stuff.Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:Specification: Disobeyed a lawful order from Cpl to meet at the field day muster at 1830 in front of the duty room on 19Dec96 Awarded forfeiture of $218.00 per month for 1 month. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2004-00052

    Original file (FD2004-00052.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) .--------------------. If she can provide additional documented information to substantiate an issue, the applicant should consider exercising her right to make a personal appearance before the Board. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AB) (HGH SRA) 1.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00076

    Original file (ND02-00076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00204

    Original file (ND00-00204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, an unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days may be subject to a bad conduct discharge if the applicant is convicted at a Special or General Court-Martial. The...