Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00906
Original file (ND00-00906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AN, USN
Docket No. ND00-00906

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000712, 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 010313. 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

 1. To whom it may concern I W____ K. W___ request Honable Discharge the Discharge that I received was supposed to be upgraded after 6 months after separation In 1988. The reasons for a General discharge was due to the fact that I had to file charges against a Commanding Officer for not protecting me against an sexual harrasement incident that preceded with other women also being harassed by the same petty officer A few months later I requested mass against a nother petty Officer for saying that I spoke out loudly to him and lost that hearing I knew it was all in retaliation down from that same commanding Officer. I had never had any problems with anyone or the navy until I filed that charge against the Commanding Officer for not protecting my rights.

 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 (DEP)     840430 - 841008  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 841009               Date of Discharge: 880722

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 09 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: AN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.15 (8)    Behavior: 3.02 (10)               OTA: 3.00

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: OSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

880412:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91:
         Specification: Disrespect towards a first class petty officer on 2Feb88.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, CHL for 25 days.
         CA 880531: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

980601:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. [Applicant refused to sign.]
880602:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
880617:  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 honorable conditions (general).

880627:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

880716:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 880722 under honorable conditions (general) 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 the applicant’s issue 1, r elevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The applicant states that her Commanding Officer was retaliating against her, but the Board cannot dispute the fact that the applicant was found guilty at a court martial of disrespect. The Board does not find a connection between the applicant’s actions of disrespect towards a Petty Officer and retaliation from her commanding Officer. The applicant is responsible for her actions and must pay the consequences. Additionally, the applicant had an Administrative Discharge Board at which a group of 3 officers recommended a discharge characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant could have received a characterization of other than honorable, but instead, the ADB and Commanding Officer granted leniency and recommended a general discharge. The Board finds this equitable based on the seriousness of the applicant’s misconduct. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

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 (D). 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), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) 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 her pursuits and is reminded that she 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 15560A), effective 15 Jun 87 until
10 Jan 89, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, disrespect, 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00086

    Original file (ND00-00086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION It does not, however, change anything about the fact that the applicant had 4 NJPs, 2 retention warnings, was declared a deserter and was discharged from the Navy in absentia. The characterization is based on his time while in the service, which was served under other than honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00078

    Original file (ND99-00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “I don't understand why my DD214 says misconduct.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214(2) Copies from Medical Record (18pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940926 Date of Discharge: 960319 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00689

    Original file (ND02-00689.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested 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 (DEP) 861224 - 870211 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 870212 Date of Discharge: 880919 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01112

    Original file (ND01-01112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020328. 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).Issue 1 states: “At the time of offenses committed I had been drinking and the offenses would not have been committed had I not been drinking.” The applicant was guilty at NJP on two separate occasions for violation of the UCMJ. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01126

    Original file (ND99-01126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of Letter of Recognition Copy of Certificate of Appointment Twelve pages from medical record Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00974

    Original file (ND99-00974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00974 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990713, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00082

    Original file (ND99-00082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in processing the applicant for discharge) and equity (did the applicant receive a discharge characterization in keeping with Navy guidance and was the characterization typical of other service members being separated for the same reason) of each applicant’s discharge. At this time the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct but is encouraged to continue his pursuits. PART IV - INFORMATION...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00503

    Original file (ND02-00503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00503 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020305, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.910517: 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 NJP of 901114 for being disrespectful in language towards a petty officer, and incapacitated...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00589

    Original file (ND01-00589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CA action 880710: Sentence approved and ordered executed.880709: Applicant to confinement. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 880817 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00285

    Original file (ND01-00285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.861219: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence, violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disobeying a lawful order. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge and reason for discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).The applicant introduced no decisional...