Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00302
Original file (ND00-00302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LNC, USN
Docket No. ND00-00302

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000105, 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 000824. 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 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement: "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 89MAY05 UNTIL 941220". The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action. Please review my military records. Thank you.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter from Family Service Center dated January 19, 1999
Letter from defense counsel dated January 22, 1999
Job/character recommendation dated December 14, 1999
Recommendation dated December 2, 1999
Copies of questionnaires dated March 2, 1998, undated (2), February 15, 1998, March 3, 1998 (2), February 25, 1998, March 5, 1998 and March 4, 1998
Copy of DD Form 214 (2)
Copy of application for consideration under the active duty chief warrant officer program dated July 14, 1997
Copy of recommendation for selection to chief warrant officer dated July 17, 1997
Job/character reference dated November 2, 1997


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     811106 - 820408  COG
         Active: USN               820409 - 850504  HON
                  USN                       850505 - 890504  HON
                  USN                       890505 - 940609  HON
                  USN                       940610 - 951220  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951221               Date of Discharge: 981002

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 09 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 31                          Years Contracted: 3

 Education Level: 13                        AFQT: 62

 Highest Rate: LNC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.70 (2)    Behavior: 4.30 (2)                OTA: ???

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NCM, NAM (4), GCM (4), KLM (2), NDSM,
SASM (4), NUC, NER (2), SSDR (6)
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 :

980826:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (5 specs):
 Specification 1: Indecent liberties with a female under 16 years between May 1995 and September 1997, to wit: exposing his genitals, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 2: Indecent liberties with a female under 16 years between May 1995 and September 1997, to wit: exposing his genitals, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 3: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in January 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her buttocks, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 4: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in August 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her vagina, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
Specification 5: Commit an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years in August 1997, to wit: placing his hand upon her vagina, with intent to arouse his sexual desires.
         Award: Forfeiture of $1,147 per month for 2 months, restriction for 60 days. Restriction for 30 days suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
980827:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980827:          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.
980904:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

980911:  Commander, Naval Base, San Diego 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 981002 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: “The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action. Please review my military records. Thank you.” The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found the reason for the applicant’s discharge was his NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 134: Indecent Liberties and Acts with a Minor (Five Specifications). The NDRB found the applicant’s documented misconduct was such severity that it outweighed his otherwise creditable service. Relief is not warranted.
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 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00642

    Original file (ND04-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specification 4: Wrongfully harassing and using abusive language toward prospect T_ F_ on or about Jul 94.Specification 5: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect T_ F_ by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00382

    Original file (ND02-00382.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00382 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020213, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to sexual harassment. My commanding officer also recommended a General Discharge based on my years of outstanding service. The one character reference provided by the Applicant does not mitigate his conduct, and therefore an upgrade based upon...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012375

    Original file (20140012375.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests, in effect, correction of the applicant's records to show he retired effective 30 June 2002. Counsel states: * the applicant was dishonorably discharged as a result of court-martial on 9 April 2007 * the offense alleged in the applicant's court-martial proceedings occurred on 1 May 2002 * the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he received several awards and medals for his outstanding service, including the Army Good Conduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00529

    Original file (ND04-00529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 970324: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. 970521: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110021637

    Original file (AR20110021637.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Careful consideration was given to his entire service record, to include his prior and post active service; however, the analyst determined that this service was not sufficiently meritorious to overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00101-99

    Original file (00101-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Milner, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 April 1999 that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's b. naval record.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01030

    Original file (MD04-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 980723: GCMCA, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Specifically, the applicant contends that his discharge was unjust “s ince my substantive and procedural due process rights were denied to me and my...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00675

    Original file (ND01-00675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00675 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. THE CO OF NAS JAX DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ADMIN SEPARATION BOARD DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DISCHARGE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 970609: Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017061

    Original file (20140017061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 30 July 1975, the separation authority approved his request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a General Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial on 12 August 1975 with an under honorable conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00174

    Original file (ND02-00174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990419: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful order on Mar99 to Apr99, to wit: allowing a civilian to reside in her assigned BEQ room Award: Letter of caution, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. The NDRB found the evidence presented by the Applicant to be lacking to warrant an upgrade to her characterization of service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the...