Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01044
Original file (ND00-01044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SMSN, USN
Docket No. ND00-01044

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000913, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONCDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. (Equity Issue) This former member opines that his UOTHC discharge is to harsh in light of his overall service record. On this basis, he avers that separation under honorable conditions is warranted.

2. (Equity Issue) This form member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C., enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of his application.

 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):
         Active: USN                        810529 - 850527  HON
         Inactive: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 850528               Date of Discharge: 880504

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 23

 Highest Rate: SM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.93 (3)    Behavior: 3.87 (3)                OTA: 3.80

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NER, SSDR (3), BER (2), MUC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

871109:  Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128:
         Specification: Wrongfully commit an assault.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $583.00 per month for 6 months, CHL for 6 months, reduction to SMSN.
         CA 871130: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

871107:  Applicant to confinement.

871223:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.
880110:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.
880125:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

880223:  Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

880318:  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

880321:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) directed discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense.

880329:  CNMPC discharged the applicant 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 880504 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).

Issue 1 and 2. The applicant states that his UOTHC discharge was too harsh, in light of his overall service record and he sites post-service conduct as justification for a discharge upgrade. The applicant was convicted at Special Court Martial of assault. The NDRB does not have the authority to overturn a court martial conviction but it does have the authority to grant clemency based on post-service conduct. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the NDRB to consider post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade the applicant’s less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for clemency, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide any of these documents, therefore the NDRB has no basis for upgrading the applicant’s discharge. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.

 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 128 (other than simple assault), 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00909

    Original file (ND01-00909.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:Four pages from applicant's service record Copy of employee evaluation dated December 9, 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900430 - 901021 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 901022...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00107

    Original file (ND02-00107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall change to: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct- commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILSPERSMAN, Article 3630600.A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on XXXXXX. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 870529 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A). However, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00489

    Original file (ND01-00489.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.860114: Vacate suspended forfeiture and reduction awarded at CO's NJP dated 12Nov85. As a result I had tried, to the best of my knowledge, at least seven times to change my rate, none of which were approved.” The Board disagrees that the applicant’s discharge was inequitable due to his rating assignment. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00720

    Original file (ND00-00720.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.Retention Warning from [USS W. S. SIMS {FF-1059}] : Advised of deficiency (Violation of UCMJ, Articles 90, 91, 92, 117 and 134: Drunk and Disorderly), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning. SIMS {FF-1059} notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01096

    Original file (ND02-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 950221 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The official record notes he was charged with murder by civilian authorities, a serious offense for which a punitive discharge and a life sentence is authorized. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01088

    Original file (ND01-01088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 840619 - 840620 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 840621 Date of Discharge: 871015 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 03 03 25 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 19 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 24 Highest Rate: SMSN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.15 (4) Behavior: 2.95...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01009

    Original file (ND03-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01009 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00001

    Original file (ND03-00001.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. The Board found no impropriety or inequity regarding the conduct of the Applicant’s special court-martial. Relief not warranted.The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00159

    Original file (ND99-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    930824: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed alcohol rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to serious offense, misconduct due to civil conviction, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended separation be suspended for 12 months, discharge general under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00467

    Original file (ND01-00467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-FA, USN Docket No. He is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his 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...