Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00269
Original file (ND01-00269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00269

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010105, 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 010808. 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 (verbatim)

1. It should be recalled that the U.S. Naval recruiter who recruited me was busted down in rank for misinforming me about my responsabilities in regards to swearing in to the Armed Forces. Siniour Chief Z_ was the Sinior Chieff of military recruit officers in Chicago, ill at the time. I gave him a micro cassett tape of the recruiter telling me on tape to swear in in Brooklyn N.Y. then go to the airport on the bus & get lost in the crowd so he could get his commision. He told me I would not be in the Navy untill I swore in in Chicago, he lied & I got it on tape along with a half of dozen other ways he planed the Navy for money - Sinior Chief Z_ was familiar with this tape recording & this case- Thank you-

P.S. I had told him I'd wanted a six month delayed entry - & had changed my mind. That when the recruiter tricked me into this problem & I taped it to back myself up.

A.O.L. is on my rap sheet - could you please take it off-

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Seven pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     UNKNOWN           COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 860924               Date of Discharge: 870421

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 00 06 28
         Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40
Highest Rate: SR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF                  Behavior:        NMF               OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 55
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 :

860925:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 0001, 25Sep86.
861025:  Applicant declared a deserter.
861118:  Applicant apprehended by Rybrook Police Department, Rybrook, NY 1615, 18Nov86. Charges pending: resisting arrest and criminal mischief (resolved).
861118:  Applicant to confinement.

 861119:  Applicant returned to military control 1040, 19Nov86 (55 days/apprehended).
861121:  Applicant from confinement.
870123:  Special Court Martial
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification: Unauthorized absence 0001, 25Sep86 to 1040, 19Nov86.
 Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92:
 Specification: Introduced liquor onboard RTC, Great Lakes, IL
Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (3 specs):
          Specification 1: Steal property of NEX valued at $45.00 on 25Nov86.
         Specification 2: Steal property of NEX valued at $45.00 on 1Dec86.
         Specification 3: Steal property of NEX valued at $3.69 on 5Dec86.
         Findings: to Charge I, II and III and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: CHL for 60 days, forfeiture of $438 per month for 2 months, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 870323: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.

 870123:  Applicant to confinement.
870129:  Applicant released from confinement and restored to full duty.
870322:  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 870421 with a bad conduct due to convicted by a 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).
In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the punishment of any service member was then, and is now, a legitimate function of command judgement and prerogative. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to substantiate how the alleged misconduct of another service member could excuse his own misconduct.
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. (B, Part IV) 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. 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 .
Relief denied.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560), Change 1/83, effective
28 Apr 83 until 14 Jun 87, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 19984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984) enclosure (1), Chapter 2, paragraph 2.24, COURT-MARTIAL SPECIFICATION, PRESUMPTION CONCERNING.
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 " afls10.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, D.C. 20374-5023   


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00855

    Original file (ND02-00855.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specification 2: Larceny of gasoline on 960428 ($17.17). Specification 10: Larceny of ring on May96. Specification 12: Larceny of ring on May96 ($150.00).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00419

    Original file (ND02-00419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00419 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00431

    Original file (ND02-00431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00431 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020226, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "discharge based on mental illness invalid for navy to discharge." Documentation The Applicant’s medical record was not available to the Board. 860618: Special Court Martial [trial dates 860210, 860303-860306] Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 85: Absent in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00177

    Original file (ND02-00177.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. 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: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 900822 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00401

    Original file (ND99-00401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 870905: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence 870601 – 870707, [37 days/A. 890512: Special Court Martial [trial dates 890512] Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 85, (2) Specifications.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00035

    Original file (ND03-00035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. 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). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01018

    Original file (ND02-01018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Applicant's letter to the Board, dtd Oct 15, 2001 Applicant's spouse, E_ A. L_, letter to the Board, dtd Oct 29, 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 860826 - 870705 COG Active: USN 870706 - 940116 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940117*...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00550

    Original file (ND03-00550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00550 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030214. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00360

    Original file (ND00-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Intentions unknown.850423: Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1700, onboard Naval Station Philadelphia, PA. (25 days UA).850426: Applicant commenced unauthorized absence at 0730, 85APR26, while being processed by NAVSTA Phila, PA for transfer to USS PELELIU (LHA 5) under technical arrest orders. Sentence: Confinement for 31 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00105

    Original file (ND02-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 5815-010 (formerly 3640420).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on...