Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00845
Original file (ND00-00845.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-AK2, USN
Docket No. ND00-00845

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000626, 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 010125. After a thorough review of the records, 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. Change of venue was not requested. The jury that heard my case consisted of 3 officers from my command (HC-4).
 2. It was later revealed to myself by AZC(AW) S_ D_ HC4 Maintenance Admin LCPO, that the Monday prior to the start of my trial, that LCDR S_ H_ HC-4 Maintenance Officer stated "The trial is this week, and he will be found guilty right LT"s” during the weekly department head pass down. Two members of my jury were present at this meeting. With this in their minds there is no way I received a fair and impartial trial.
3. Ineffective counsel, on the basis that even though on numerous occasions I presented facts to my legal counsel (LT. J_) that there was a conspiracy to get rid of me (preferably out of the Navy) he never once pursued this theory. Even when testimony against me was faltering, i.e., when AMS1 G_ stated that I chased a female squadron member around our tool room. The alleged victim never stated that I chased her around the tool room.
 4. Perjury was committed by AMS1 G_, and AK1(AW) A_, but was never pursued by my legal counsel.
 5. AK1(AW) A_ medical history was not brought into evidence which would have played a major part in determining my innocence as it was recorded that she was in fear of her own husband.
6. There was never sufficient proof to the fact that I touched AK1(AW) A_ in the manner she stated. She never once followed the procedures as stated in the sexual harassment directives. No witness ever saw me sexually harass her.
7. Respectfully Request full review of my case, reinstated and afforded the opportunity to retire with full benefits.

 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: USN                        790615 - 821014  HON
                   USN                       821015 - 880727  HON
                   USN                       880728 - 910430  HON
                  USN                       910501 - 960925  HON
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     790412 - 790614  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960926               Date of Discharge: 980330

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 06 05
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 35                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 10 GED           AFQT: 44
Highest Rate: AKC

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2.29        Enlisted evals
 Performance: 1.00 (2)    Behavior: 2.00 (2)                                  NCO evals
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NESM, NER (4), GCM (3), SSDR (5), NAM, JMU, Flag Letter Commendation, NATO, NUC (2), NDSM, SASM (2), KLM, MUC, OSR (4), AFSM
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 :

970718:  Applicant admitted to hospital.
970728:  Applicant discharged from hospital.
970807:  Applicant seen by on-call psychiatrist 18Jul97. Diagnosis: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, resolved. Axis II: Paranoid personality traits. Recommendations: 1. ...fit for duty. Strongly recommend early retirement. 2. Regular follow-up with Dr L_ is required. 3. Patient is not homicidal or suicidal. He is entirely responsible for his actions....
971107:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
          Specification: Wrongfully communicate to Aviation Structural Mechanic (Structures) First Class and Aviation Storekeeper First Class a threat, to wit: "I am going to make her life hell. I will call her detailer and make sure she gets the shittiest orders possible," on 7Jul97.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
         Specification: Fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: SECNAV Instruction 5300.26B, dated 6 January 1993, by sexually harassing Aviation Storekeeper First Class by placing his hand on her knee and stroking her hand with his hand in an improper manner, on divers occasions from October 1996 to June 1997.
         Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 80:
          Specification: Attempt to violate a lawful general order, to wit: OPNAVINST 5370.2A dated 14 March 1994, by asking AN, out on a date on or about November 1996.
          Findings: to Charges and specifications thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: Reprimand, restriction for 30 days, reduction to AK2.
         CA 971210: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
971126:  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: (1) your special court-martial conviction of 6 November 1997 for the offenses of violation of UCMJ Articles 80 - attempted failure to obey a lawful general order (attempted fraternization), 92 - failure to obey a lawful general order (sexual harassment), and 134 - Communicating a threat; and (2) LCDR B_'s 15 July 1997 investigation indicting violations of UCMJ Articles 107 - False official statements, and 121 - Larceny by false pretense.
971203:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
971205:  Defense counsel's letter of request for clemency.
971210:  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, and recommended suspended separation for 12 months. Recommended retention.
971211:  Defense counsel for the applicant requested 30 additional days to file the letter of deficiency. Request denied.
971218:  Defense counsel's letter of deficiency. Entire letter found on microfiche.

 980115:  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): I concur with the Administrative Board's recommendation for separation, but I recommend disapproval of the recommendation for the 12 month suspension of separation.
 On 30 December 1994, during his previous enlistment, AK2(AW/SW) (applicant) was found guilty at Captain's Mast for Article 107 (False Official Statements), and Article 123 (Forgery). As a result he was removed from the Navy Counselor rating, received a punitive letter of reprimand, and was placed on Petty Officer Quality Control. As a result of numerous incidents in this command of inappropriate behavior dealing with his subordinates, AKC (applicant) received numerous counseling sessions from his superiors on his actions within his work center. His repeated lack of rehabilitation after these "wake ups" resulted in my personally counseling him. Three days later, he requested leave to see an unconfirmed sick father back in the states. Before he boarded the plane, he had suicidal ideations which placed him in the hospital. An investigation was initiated into his numerous problem areas, which revealed many severe incidents. On 7 November 1997, by a Special Court-Martial, AK2 (AW/SW) (applicant) was found guilty of Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful General Regulation: sexual harassment), Article 80 (Attempts: fraternization) and Article 134 (Communicating a Threat), all with direct subordinates in his chain of command.
 Due to the severity of the offense, I cannot place him back within my chain of command. He is of no value to my squadron. With his prior record of substandard performance, the severity of the recent offenses, and no signs of rehabilitation potential I recommend that AK2 (AW/SW) (applicant) be immediately separated from the Naval service.

980310:  CNO 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 980330 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, 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 1-6, the Board determined 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 or wrongful procedure and no basis for relief.
 Relief is not warranted.
In response to applicant’s issue 7, the Board conducted a complete review of the applicant’s records, facts and circumstances involving this case. As stated above, the Board did not find any reason to change the applicant’s discharge characterization. However, the following is provided for the applicant’s edification. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). 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. 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. 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 post-service documentation of good character and conduct. The Board strongly encourages the applicant to submit an application for a personal appearance hearing. Representation at personal appearance is highly recommended. The applicant is also reminded that the application must be received within 15-years from the date of discharge. Relief denied.

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 92, for failure to obey a lawful general order, 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00653

    Original file (ND03-00653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “COG.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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): Inactive: USNR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00288

    Original file (ND04-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. They stated that they felt the harassment charges were to serious to dismiss based on the allegations but they didn’t feel like it was serious enough to take to court martial, and I don’t feel that it was fair and just. I felt that the entire time this situation was going on chiefs.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00254

    Original file (ND04-00254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 020419: 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 discharge under other than honorable conditions. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00673

    Original file (ND02-00673.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SR D_ T_ presented a written statement, which I reviewed while in legal, which told of how she had overheard these girls talking about how they were going to "get me" and other things, but her statement was not even taken into account, nor was she present at the mast in front of LCDR C_. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500198

    Original file (ND0500198.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. Upon review of the Applicant’s statements, documentation provided and service record, the Board did not discern that the Applicant’s chain of command treated him in such a manner that would refute the presumption that he was properly and equitably discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct....

  • 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600343

    Original file (ND0600343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-CS1, USNDocket No. Typed version does not reflect suspended separation for 6 months.040910: Letter of Applicant deficiencies submitted from Applicant counsel.040916: Commanding Officer, USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47), recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and Family Advocacy Program Failure. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501044

    Original file (ND0501044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD NOT LONGER SEE HER DURING CAPTAIN’S MAST AND A SUSPENDED BUST FOR 6 MONTHS AND FINED $1,000 FOR 2 MONTHS. Furthermore, both B_ E_ and her father verified the ongoing relationship in their statements and J_ A_ O_ provided 2 additional statements documenting the ongoing relationship between the Applicant and the lady whom he was ordered to stop seeing.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501045

    Original file (ND0501045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050606. The Commanding Officers. Appeal denied 031103.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense-misconduct.031008: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00841

    Original file (ND02-00841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00841 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020529, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I was told by navy legal office on Guam that an admin board was to be pick at random, but the Capt pick the board himself, I was also told that one member of my board was suppose to be from another command so as to be impartial this was not done everyone on my board was from my command. The possibility that one of his...