Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00287
Original file (ND00-00287.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00287

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 991228 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 000810. 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 3630605.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. Why was my request for a "closed mast" put on hold till after they sent me to NJP.

2. Why was I punished twice for the same offenses 3 months apart.

3. Why did everything come about after I started a formal grievance procedures.

4. Why was my navy appointed lawyer transferred immediately after Admin Board.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter to BCNR (2pgs)
Copies of Allotment Action Request (2)
Letter from applicant's wife (4 pgs)
Letter from applicant's daughter's mother
Copy of Record of Counseling (2)
Verbal Counseling Letter from MS1(SW) R___ L. W_____
Letter from MSCC(SW) C. B. L_____ in reference to Late Child Support Payment
Letter from applicant
Copies of Voluntary Statements from applicant (2)
Letter from Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (2pgs)
Copy of daughter's Birth Certificate and Social Security Card
Copies of Discharge Information (6pgs)
Letter from applicant to Mr. M___ P____
Letter from applicant to Commanding Officer, Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay
Copy of Additional Charge Sheet
Copy of Appointment of Administrative Board Letter
Letter of Complaint against Commanding Officer
Copy of Report and Disposition of Offenses
Copies of Special Request Authorization Chits (3)
Letter to Congressman L_____
Letter from LN1 E______
Statement from applicant
Copy of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record
Dates and Events Summary (3pgs)


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        850709 - 890708  HON
                  USNR             890709 - 920426  HON
                  USN                       920427 - 960420  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     841027 - 850708  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960421               Date of Discharge: 970718

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 03 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 17                          Years Contracted: 2

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: MS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.00 (1)    Behavior: 2.00 (1)                OTA: 2.14

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, SASM, Pistol Expert, Rifle Expert

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 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960421:  Re-enlisted at NAVSUBASE KINGS BAY GA for 2 years.

 970306:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Debt dishonorably failing to pay child support 960401-960430 and 960501-960531 (2 Specs), wrongfully obtaining telephone services (2 Specs).
         Award: Forfeiture of $697.35 pay per month for 2 months, restriction for 30 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
970326:  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 Commanding Officer's NJP on 970306, for violation of UCMJ, Article 134, failure to pay just debts of child support; and Violation of UCMJ Article 134, obtaining services under the false pretenses by using another service member's BEQ telephone PIN to make long distance phone calls.
970402:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
970611:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.
970630:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): In regard to the letter of deficiencies submitted as enclosure (1). On 10 June 1997, MSSN___(applicant) appeared before an Administrative Discharge Board. The issue regarding whether or not Seaman___(applicant) had been properly brought before the admin board was argued, enclosure (2) refers. MSSN___(applicant) was properly informed that he was being processed for Administrative Discharge under the Notice of Administrative Board Procedure Proposed Action; for misconduct due to commission of serious offenses. MSSN___(applicant) was not notified for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct where he would have been required to have a page 13 counseling warning. MSSN___(applicant) engaged in misconduct due to a commission of serious offenses not once, but twice within a period of one year and two separate findings with regard to the misconduct were made. I concur with the board’s findings and recommendations in this case. I recommend that MSSN___(applicant) be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterized under other than honorable conditions.


970715:  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 970718 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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 applicant’s issues 1-4, the Board found that t o permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.

 There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134, for dishonorably failing to pay debt, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00471

    Original file (ND99-00471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970228: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended retention. Relief not warranted.The applicant’s second issue requested the NDRB review the applicant’s discharge and determine whether a vote to retain by an officer board was overturned by civilian authority on grounds of political correctness and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00653

    Original file (ND01-00653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. 990708: Commanding Officer, USS DEFENDER (MCM-2) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.990719: Commander, Mine Warfare Command authorized the applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The NDRB noted the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00511

    Original file (ND00-00511.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980504: Chief of Naval Personnel to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower & Reserve Affairs) recommending applicant's discharge other than honorable by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980619 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00515

    Original file (ND99-00515.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00515 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990302, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Award: Forfeiture of $100 per month for 1 months, extra duty for 20 days. Specification: Unauthorized absence 0710, 14Feb97 until 2000, 21Apr97 ( 67 days/surrendered).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01103

    Original file (ND01-01103.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01103 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010821, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00871

    Original file (ND00-00871.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant had 4 issues listed on his form DD 293. The applicant states he can’t believe his false military I.D. The Board determined that, the applicant received an administrative separation and based on the applicant’s service record and supporting documentation, a General discharge, under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01019

    Original file (ND00-01019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 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 first issue states: “Veteran was harassed by command when asked to see a JAG Lawyer Rep. Relief is not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00512

    Original file (ND00-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00512 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000404, 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:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Rebuttal for Separation Recommendation to Commanding Officer of Submarine Group 2 (2pgs) Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copies of Commanding Officer's Messages...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00792

    Original file (ND01-00792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would first like to say to the Discharge Review Board that I appreciate your time in hearing my case. 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 requested the Board change the discharge so he may receive veteran’s benefits. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00252

    Original file (ND00-00252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991214, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. 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 issue 1, the applicant states that his “discharge was inequitable because...