Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00135
Original file (ND00-00135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BUCA, USN
Docket No. ND00-00135

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991105, 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 000727. 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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one personal discrimination isolated incident which happened within 18 months of service with no other adverse action.
I deeply regret not fulfilling the opportunities and contributing and promises I made to myself, my family, and my country as a military soldier of the United States Navy.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of standard transfer order
Letter from Sergeant First Class, Georgia Army National Guard dated July 16, 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     920513 - 930315  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930316               Date of Discharge: 940720

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 04 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 47

 Highest Rate: BUCN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (2)    Behavior: 2.80 (2)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940617:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): (1) Indecent assault on 15Jun94, (2) Drunk and disorderly on 15Jun94.
         Award: Forfeiture of $466 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to BUCA. No indication of appeal in the record.
940621:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
940621:          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.
940622:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940707:  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 940720 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: “My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one personal discrimination isolated incident which happened within 18 months of service with no other adverse action.
I deeply regret not fulfilling the opportunities and contributing and promises I made to myself, my family, and my country as a military soldier of the United States Navy.” The applicant’s issue implies a permissive doctrine that excuses a service member’s misconduct. No such doctrine exists. The applicant was discharged for his violation of UCMJ Article 134, Indecent Assault, and Drunk and Disorderly both offenses are considered serious offenses, punishable with punitive discharge at Court Martial. Relief not warranted.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, 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 view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".

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
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00045

    Original file (ND01-00045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001016, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The Board determined these issues are not decisional issues but are statements of fact and require not further comment. The Board determined there is no evidence of racial discrimination in the applicant’s service record, nor did the applicant provide any such documentation to support his allegations.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01142

    Original file (ND99-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-01142 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990824, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Released for Naval Convenience. Applicant declined DVA treatment.940720: 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 your violation of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00715

    Original file (ND99-00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00715 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990503, 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:Copy of DD Form 214. Letters of Appreciation (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 930220 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01153

    Original file (ND99-01153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950714: Summary Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully possessing weapons on board NAS Cecil Field without proper authority, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Violate a lawful order by having a female guest in the barracks after hours, violation of UCMJ Article 109: Without proper authority, willfully damage, by writing on it, one photograph of AA M____ A____. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00677

    Original file (ND02-00677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00677 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020415, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. For this reason it is strongly recommended that the patient (Applicant) be separated from the United States Navy in accordance with the Navy Military Personnel Manual, Article 3620200, separation for convenience of the government. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00340

    Original file (ND00-00340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 36 months of service with no other adverse actions. C. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00053

    Original file (ND99-00053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge wasn't base on my service in the Navy. No indication of appeal in the record.960813: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by your violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, assault consummated by a battery on 23 April 1996, Article 134, false or unauthorized pass offense on 26 January 1996, and Article 134, wrongfully committing an indecent act on 23...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00090

    Original file (ND01-00090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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) 891208 - 900731 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 900801 Date of Discharge: 920928 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 28 Inactive: None 920914: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00164

    Original file (ND03-00164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00164 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, 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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. Please consider my service record in good standing and change my discharge from other than honorable to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00077

    Original file (ND01-00077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00077 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "misconduct" only. 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 response to the applicant’s issue, the applicant implies that a permissive...