Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01005
Original file (ND00-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAR, USN
Docket No. ND00-01005

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000829, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010215. 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: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues
1. I request that the Board review the type of discharge received. I had accepted an admin board discharge prior to going UA. Art. 86, General Under Honorable Conditions. Based on my service to the Navy and country prior to this I am requesting that this be considered.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Applicant's ltr to the Board dtd June 2, 2000
Character Reference ltr from F_ H_, Machine Shop Supervisor, undtd
Character Reference ltr from W_ G. S_, USAF Tsgt. Ret. dtd Jun 11, 2000
Criminal History Record Check dtd Sep 26, 2000
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (F-27 Familiarization) dtd November 2, 1990
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (DC-8 Familiarization) dtd November 12, 1990
Certificate of Training (TIMCO), (F-727 Familiarization) dtd October 26, 1990
 Letter of Outstanding Job Performance from B_ K_, Project Manager, TIMCO, dtd June 3, 1993
Congratulations letter for job well done from G_ P_, Production Foreman, TIMCO, dtd April 20, 1992
Letter of Commendation from Lockhead Aeromod Center, Inc. dtd January 25, 1990
Letter of Outstanding Performance from C_ H. B_, TIMCO, dtd June 23, 1992
Letter of Appreciation from M_ B, TIMCO, undtd
Letter of Thank You from R. A. H_, Sr. VP, TIMCO, dtd June 26, 1992
 U.S. Dept. of Transportation (FAA) Mechanic License issued 2 March 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        810504 - 851210  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     800907 - 810503  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 851211               Date of Discharge: 900309

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 29 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time.)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 46

 Highest Rate: AD2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.9 (3)     Behavior: 3.9 (3)                 OTA: 3.93

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SSDR(2), MUC, Battle "E" Ribbon

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 91

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

851211:  Reenlisted for a term of 6 years at FITRON 21, San Diego, CA and entitled to Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).
880907:  Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar.

880926:  Surrendered onboard (19 days).

 881013:  Special Court Martial.
 Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (3 specs)
Specification 1: unauthorized absence without proper authority absent himself from his appointed place of duty on or about 0700, 4AUG88 until 9030, 4 AUG88.
Specification 2: on or about 1300, 24AUG88 failed to go from his appointed place of duty.
Specification 3: on or about 7SEP88 absent himself from his unit until 26SEP88.
Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: wrongfully use Methamphetamine on or about 21 JUN88.
Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134: breach of correctional custody on or about 7SEP88 break restriction.
         Findings: to Charge I and all specifications, thereunder, and Charge II and Charge III, guilty.
Sentence: Forfeiture of $200 per month for 4 months, reduction to E-4, confinement for 60 days.
CA 881031: Sentence approved and ordered executed but the execution of that part of sentence adjudging confinement for 60 days will be suspended for a period of 6 months from date of trial.
890110:  Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar without authority.

890111:  Surrendered on board NAS Miramar. (1 days)

890322:  Unauthorized absence from NAS Miramar without authority.

890421:  Declared deserter.

 890603:  Apprehended by civil authorities in Spartanburg, SC at 0830. Returned to military jurisdiction to NAVABSCOLLU Jacksonville, FL, and returned to NAS Miramar at 0010, 89JUN08. (71 days)
890603:  Pre-trial confinement.

 890707:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: on or about 22 March 1989 absent himself until apprehended on or about 2 June 1989.
         Findings: to Charge I, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $466 per month for 3 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 890825: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge and the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 45 days is suspended for 6 months.
         SA: see SSPCMO.

890707:  Joined Navy Brig, Naval Station, San Diego, for confinement.

890713:  From confinement; to appellate leave.
891130:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

900309:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 900309 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (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).
Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. The applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Although the applicant provided post service documentation, the Board did not find clemency is warranted. Relief is denied.

The applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided that an application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 9, effective 14 Dec 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL

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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00696

    Original file (ND03-00696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00696 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030313. Sentence: Confinement for 65 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. 950814: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00725

    Original file (ND02-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's Personal Letter to the Board dtd Feb 13, 2002 (3 pages) Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd Oct 9, 1989 Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd 18 Nov 89 Applicant's Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (7) Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00476

    Original file (ND99-00476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My cocaine usage happened because of my addiction to alcohol. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910205 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (A). 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 Board found the applicant’s issues without basis with regard to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00168

    Original file (ND00-00168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is my hope that the review board will merit clemency based upon my post-service conduct. 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: “It is my hope that when taking into consideration my overall performance marks the review board will evaluate my discharge as inequitable.” The applicant was discharged with a Bad Conduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00244

    Original file (ND04-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00581

    Original file (ND03-00581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 900314: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.900620: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (unauthorized absence for more than 30 days).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00796

    Original file (ND01-00796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00796 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010522, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. A corrected court-martial order is directed that accurately recounts that as to Specification 2 of Charge I, appellant plead not guilty and was found not guilty; the order shall also indicate that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01030

    Original file (ND00-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500248

    Original file (ND0500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01195

    Original file (ND02-01195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149 Letter from Applicant Letter of recommendation from P_ E. B_ Letter of recommendation from H. W. J_ Drug screening certification dated June 18, 2002 Letter of recommendation from W_ L. C_ Letter of recommendation from L_ H_ Letter of recommendation from A_ D. N_ PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...