Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01051
Original file (ND00-01051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ENS, USNR
Docket No. ND00-01051

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000915, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant designated the American Legion as his 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. Applicant's DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects an "honorable" discharge instead of "general under honorable conditions" as directed by the Secretary of the Navy. The Board's review was based upon applicant receiving a "General". The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: BUPERS ORDER 2249 of 99SEP14 & SECNAVINST 1920.6A [administratively corrected].

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. (Equity Issue) This former member proffers that his OIC abused his authority over him by bullying him around, harassing him by writing him up for the most minor of offenses and by misleading superior officers regarding his true behavior in order to end his Navy career. On this basis, he opines that his characterization of service is unjust, undeserved and warranting upgrade.

2. (Equity Issue) This former 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
Applicant's ltr to the Board dtd 13 Feb2000
Witness ltr from Lt G_ F_, USN, dtd 22 Jan 1999 (4 pages)
Witness ltr from LCDR B_ N. M_, USN, dtd 2 Feb 99 (3 pages)
Character Reference from LTJG E_ B_, SC, USNR, dtd 18 Mar 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USNR (OCUI)      970208 - 970508  Commission
         Inactive: USNR (AOC)     970121 - 970207  To report AOCS

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission: 970509      Date of Discharge: 990930

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 04 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 29                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 16+              AFQT: N/A

 Highest Grade: ENS

 Final Officer Performance Evaluation Averages : All officer performance reports were available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NUC, AFEM, OSSR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: BUPERS ORDER 2249 OF 99SEP14 & SECNAVINST 1920.6A [administratively corrected].

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :
990319:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: on or about 10 Jun 98, behave himself with disrespect toward LCDR W_ J. O_, USN, his superior commissioned officer known to applicant to be his superior commissioned officer by saying to LT G_, "I will slit my wrist before I taken an order from O_" & "…and can tell your boss I said he can fuck-off" or words to that effect.
 Violation of UCMJ Article 89: was at the Diego Garcia Officer's Club, on or about 08 June 98, a public place, to wit: Officer's Club patio, Diego Garcia, BIOT, drunk and disorderly to the disgrace of the armed forces.
         Award: Punitive letter of reprimand and restriction to quarters for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
990319:  Letter of Reprimand issued. Advise of appeal action.

 990322:  Applicant did not appeal the imposition of non-judicial punishment and did not submit a rebuttal to the letter of reprimand.
990402:  Report of NJP. Recommended that applicant not be required to show cause.
990702:  CHNAVPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

990728:  SECNAV approved the applicant's discharge as recommended by CHNAVPERS.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990930 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B), as directed by the Secretary of the Navy. The applicant’s Form DD 214 incorrectly shows the applicant received an Honorable discharge. A recommendation to correct this administrative error has been made to the Chief of Naval Personnel. 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).

Issue 1. The applicant states his characterization of service was unjust, undeserved and warrants upgrade because, the OIC abused his authority over him by bullying him around, harassing him and misleading superior officers. The character reference letters provided by the applicant, although very compelling, did not mitigate the misconduct cited by the Commander, Patrol Wing One, at NJP. The Board determined there was insufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge, based on issue number 1. Relief denied.

Issue 2. The applicant petitions the NDRB to consider post-service conduct as justification to upgrade his discharge. The applicant did not provide any documentation to demonstrate any post-service accomplishments. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a 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. 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. The Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A of 21 November 1983 (Administrative separation of Officers), establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

 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 89 (disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer), 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00874

    Original file (ND02-00874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00874 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020607, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant understood that a discharge under honorable conditions (general) is not the highest qualitative type of separation, and that while he may be entitled to the major portion of veteran's rights and benefits presently authorized for former officers whose service has been similar to his own, should any present...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01285

    Original file (ND02-01285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01285 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. CHNAVPERS recommends Applicant’s separation from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00575

    Original file (ND99-00575.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    980312: CHNAVPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant's resignation be approved and the request for separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial be directed with a General characterization. In response to applicant’s issue 2, the Board found nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00148

    Original file (ND99-00148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00148 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My offer to submit a new sample for analysis when I was informed of the results of the 3 August 1991 analysis vas denied.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00488

    Original file (MD00-00488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00488 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000303, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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).The Board found that the applicant was commissioned 820515 and served 2 years and 11 months of active duty time. The Secretary of the Navy...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00751

    Original file (MD01-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's representative requested that the reason for separation be change to "Secretarial Authority". Dear members of the board: The following issues are the reasons my discharge should be upgraded from a general discharge to an honorable discharge. Additionally, advised applicant is submitting a letter of resignation and requested leave awaiting separation.990730: Applicant tendered a resignation of commission in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00529

    Original file (ND01-00529.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00529 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant recommended for administrative separation from active naval service with a general discharge. 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).A characterization of service of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00713

    Original file (ND99-00713.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00713 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990503, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the naval discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 970612: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00684

    Original file (ND99-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00684 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: did, at or near Kingsville, TX, on or about 11 Jan 93 wrongfully appropriate dependent travel benefits payments, of a value of $909.70, the property of the U.S. Government. 961004: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00588

    Original file (ND01-00588.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00588 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As explained in Enclosure 2, her Application for Correction before the Board of Correction of Naval Records, she was discharged based upon her perceived over familiarity with an enlisted subordinate while stationed at NAS Adak, Alaska. The summary of service clearly documents that a commission of a serious offense was...