Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00097
Original file (ND01-00097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-CTASN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00097

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 001024, 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 010329. 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/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

1. Dear Sir/Madam:

I am respectfully requesting a review of my records and the attached character references to upgrade my discharge from "Other Than Honorable" to "Honorable" as well as removing the re-enlistment code RE-4.

I was discharged under "Other Than Honorable" conditions on April 16, 1991 due to Commission of a Serious Offense for domestic problems I had experienced with my ex-wife. At this time I was serving under COMSUBPAC, Pearl Harbor, HI. It was the first time I had experienced being in trouble in the Navy.

Since my discharge, I divorced my ex-wife G_ A_ T_ and moved on with my life and re-married M_ L_ F_. I have been married for over four years now and since had a son, S_ N_ Jr. age 3, adopted my step-daughter A_ M_ N_ age 9, and still supporting my oldest daughter I_ N_ N_ age 11, and now currently expecting my fourth child in February 2001. I have matured since 1991 and have learned to accept responsibility for my actions.

I have demonstrated that my work ethics are with honesty and integrity as stated in the attached character references from both of my Supervisors in my current employment with American Medical Response.

I am respectfully requesting your consideration to upgrade my discharge to "Honorable" because I feel that it is my duty to return to fulfill my obligation and pursue my career in the United States Navy. Respectfully,
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference, undated
Character reference dated June 29, 2000
Character reference dated June 29, 2000
Twenty-five pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        860625 - 900301  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     860618 - 860624  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900302               Date of Discharge: 910416

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 01 15
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: CTA3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.27 (3)    Behavior: 2.60 (3)                OTA : 2.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NDSM

 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 :

901217:  Family Advocacy Subcommittee and Recommendations: Determination: Substantiated spouse abuse by applicant. Recommendations: Individual counseling at Family Advocacy and men's group for batterer's at Family Advocacy.
910104:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128 (2 specs): Assault on 28Nov90 and 9Dec90.
         Award: Reduction to CTASN. No indication of appeal in the record.
910211:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
910211:          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.
910312:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): CTASN (applicant) is an excessive administrative burden for this command and the U.S. Navy. He has clearly demonstrated a lack of maturity and responsibility in managing his financial and personal affairs. The following specific actions justify and support this recommendation for administrative discharge.

 (1) CTASN (applicant) is currently filing for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (indebtedness totalling $31,000.00). The majority of this debt was consumer credit.

(2) 4 January 1991 awarded NJP for violation of UCMJ, article 128 (assault - 2 specifications). Awarded a reduction in grade to E-3. The assault were committed on his wife and involved physical abuse by hitting, kicking and choking her. Military Police intervention was required on four separate occasions.

CTASN (applicant) was counseled on numerous occasions by the chain of command concerning payment of just debts, his inappropriate behavior (assaulting his wife), and the adverse effects these actions would have on him. He was referred to Family Service Center and Family Advocacy for additional counseling and assistance. Enclosure (6) provides the Family Advocacy determination of substantiated spouse abuse, and recommended treatment plan for CTASN (applicant). On a positive note, he is actively participating in the recommended treatment plan. However, CTASN (applicant) is no longer a productive, reliable asset for the Navy. He is not able to perform the duties of his rate because he is no longer eligible for the required security clearance. He and his wife both are immature and routinely demonstrate poor judgment. For example, his wife continues to write checks at the local area exchange which are then returned for insufficient funds. Additionally, she persists in driving a late model car without a driver's license. He continues to beg for forgiveness for his behavior, and pleas for retention in the Navy. Bottom line - CTSAN (applicant) does not belong on active duty in any branch of the Armed Forces . Although he can be awarded an Other than Honorable discharge, I highly recommend CTASN (applicant) be awarded a general discharge - it is the right thing to do.
910403:  CNMPC 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 910416 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).

 The NDRB considered the applicant’s issue (letter) and found nothing in the record or in the post service documentation to warrant an upgrade to the discharge. The record clearly shows the applicant was found guilty of violation of UCMJ Article 128, Assault (on his spouse). The fact that the applicant is now in a “good” relationship is irrelevant. While the applicant provided references from his employer, the Board did not find the applicant’s post service significant to warrant an upgrade. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant requested the Board change his reenlistment code from RE-4. The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes. The applicant should contact his local recruiter for information concerning reenlistment. Relief is not warranted.

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




















Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01461

    Original file (MD03-01461.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was inequitable because the conduct upon which it is based has been mitigated by overall good service and a demonstration that the alleged conduct was fabricated and untrue.2. G_ (Applicant) requests a discharge upgrade because the General Discharge is based only on alleged conduct that is mitigated by overall good service. G_ (Applicant)’s.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00172

    Original file (ND04-00172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00172 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031107. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.930719: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00211

    Original file (ND01-00211.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    851112: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of homosexuality as evidenced by members admission that he is bisexual and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.851114: 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 and to submit a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01078

    Original file (ND03-01078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character reference, dated May 16, 2003 (3 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870825 - 880306 COG Active: USN 880307 - 910819 HON Period of Service Under Review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00443

    Original file (ND01-00443.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00443 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010222, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. When people see what I have done with my life and who I have become as a person, they will think that the Navy had something to do with it, but now I'm ashamed to say I was in the Navy because I don't have an Honorable Discharge". CA 871005: Only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement at hard labor for 3...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01240

    Original file (ND03-01240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01240 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030717. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Document entitled “Summary” was listed by the Applicant on his DD214 as an attachment, but no documents were found.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00317

    Original file (ND04-00317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00317 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031210. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, also advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01036

    Original file (ND04-01036.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01201

    Original file (MD03-01201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 020828: SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.020905: GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA] directed the Applicant be discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00190

    Original file (ND04-00190.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 “REQ RE-1.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing review before a traveling panel. In the acknowledgement letter, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing, advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB)...