Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00396
Original file (ND01-00396.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00396

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010212, 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 010629. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

Dear DRB:

The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgrade to honorable. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree. The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted in characterizing my service as less than honorable does not apply to my case because of the evidence I am submitting.

1. My averages for conduct and efficiency and behavior and proficiency were pretty good. Since I reported onboard the U.S.S GUARDIAN (MCM5) on April 15 1997, I did nothing else but to try to adjust to this new type of lifestyle away from family friends and love ones, I did my duty without asking why. I never got in any trouble not for drinking, fighting or disrespecting any officer I did my job, long hours of work and in time I was another American serving his country in Japan, away from everything I knew as my home.

2. I feel I was overlooked by my superior officers, I never got an EVAL, as far I can remember I was away working for the Galley or cranking for 90 days, but I did almost 123 day until I got sent back to engineering to do the job I was originally enlisted for. " I never sign no EVAL" because of doing other job for almost six month and when I finally got one My C.O. will not let me sign it. caused I was been investigated by NCIS. I guess I was never destined to know how much work I did and how I had been appreciated. I feel betrayed by political motives and opportunist people. Did I just waste two years of my life for nothing?
3. My record of conviction by civil authorities indicated "no record" I have always been an outstanding citizen.

4. My discharge was improper because the command did not review my service records I believe they offered me a discharge based only on the fact I just came out the brig, therefore I was undesirable in the eyes of a C.O. that just knew my legal status. I was told to wait for an administrative board but I was never told a date or when this was going to take place. I was basically on probation without pay and still doing my military duty. My bills the desperation of this nightmare to be over, led me to take the offer of an OTH. I had no other choice but to take the waiver from the administrative board and they gave me a OTH. My General Court Martial did not find me appropriated for a DD, strangers to decided on what to do with me.

5. I have been a good citizen since my discharge, I been involved with community leader and politician. I have been attending school at Montclair State University for the past year now.

6. Sir all wanted know is the possibility of getting my discharge upgrade and if not, at list I pledge for my reentry code to be change. Yours very truly,

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Character reference dated June 23, 2000
Character reference dated April 29, 1999
Letter from Montclair State University dated December 10, 1999
Forty-three 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)     961016 - 961216  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961217               Date of Discharge: 981120

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 11 04
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: FA

 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: 61

*No marks found in service record.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

980629:  General Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 120:
         Specification: Carnal knowledge.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specifications):
         Specification 1 and 2: Indecent acts with a child in the presence of MSSN
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $600.00 per month for 6 months, confinement for 90 days and reduction to FR.
         As of CO's letter of 980921 CA has not acted.

980629:  To confinement.

980921:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
980921:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.
980921:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

981015:  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

981102:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

981112:  CNPC 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 981120 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).

In the applicant’s issues 1, 2 and 4, the Board found that the applicant was found guilty of carnal knowledge and 2 specifications of indecent acts with a child at a General Court Martial. For the applicant’s edification, r elevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. Although the applicant states his proficiency and conduct marks were “pretty good”, the applicant’s conviction at a General Court martial significantly outweighed any positive aspects of his abbreviated career in the Navy, and therefore the applicant’s service is accurately characterized as having been served under other than honorable conditions.

In the applicant’s issues 3 and 5, there is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. 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.

 In the applicant’s issue 6, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes or make recommendations to permit re-entry into the Naval Service or any other of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to re-enlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 " 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 DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01096

    Original file (ND99-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the “Pattern of Misconduct” and “Serious Offense” are not supported and do not warrant separation with a characterization of General Discharge and a RE-4 code. Based on the applicant’s documented misconduct, his Commanding Officer was within his legal authority to discharge the applicant for Commission of a serious offense and characterize his discharge as General (under Honorable conditions). The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00245

    Original file (ND00-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 981120 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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 applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151

    Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00133

    Original file (ND02-00133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Appeal denied 981120.980917: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to homosexual conduct and by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.980917: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board. 990108: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00552

    Original file (ND02-00552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00552 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020314, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. I had not ever done drugs in the Navy. 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: The Applicant states that he served his country proudly for five years and never had any...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00880

    Original file (ND01-00880.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 (current enlistment) Copy of DD Form 214 (previous enlistment) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 860702 - 910419 HON USNR 910420 - 930927 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 850928 - 860701 COG USNR (DEP) 970224 - 990323 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990324...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00213

    Original file (ND00-00213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.971117: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by service record entries, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01216

    Original file (ND02-01216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character reference, dated August 12, 2002 Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970729 - 970812 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970813 Date of Discharge: 990702 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 10...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00988

    Original file (ND03-00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00988 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030527. According to S_’s statement, my statement, and the memorandum that was given to the defense counsel at that time,should prove that S_ was at least 12yrs of age and that I had reason to believe that she and her friends were 16yrs of age or older. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...