Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00516
Original file (ND01-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MUSR, USN
Docket No. ND01-00516

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010907. 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/COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 72 months of service with no other adverse action.

 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               850826 - 900521  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     850813 - 850825  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900522               Date of Discharge: 930802

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 31                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 44

 Highest Rate: MU3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.90 (2)    Behavior: 3.80 (2)                OTA: 3.90

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: OSR, GCA, HM, NDSM, SSR

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

BAD CONDUCT/COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900522:  Reenlisted at Navy Band CHASN SC for 4 years.
920211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Indecent exposure.
         Award: Restriction for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
920909:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use cocaine. Additional Charge: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use cocaine.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty, to Additional Charge and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 921029: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
        

930315:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

930802:  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 930802 with a bad conduct due to court martial conviction (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. 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. The applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The applicant was found guilty at court martial for use of illegal drugs, specifically cocaine. 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 failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his non-use of illegal drugs, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record since discharge. Relief based on clemency is not warranted.

The applicant 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 recommended



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL

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 Rm309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00400

    Original file (ND01-00400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Service Related Documents (23pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 921016 - 930105 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 930106 Date of Discharge: 970702 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00173

    Original file (ND03-00173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (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 on the basis of his post-service conduct.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) Letter from Applicant, dated October 1,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00924

    Original file (ND99-00924.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. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 930112 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00056

    Original file (ND00-00056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AZAR, USN Docket No. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm309 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01264

    Original file (ND03-01264.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 910412, the USNMCMR affirmed the SPCM decision and he was separated with a Bad Conduct discharge due to conviction by special court martial as authorized by NAVMILPERSMAN, Art. 910412: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.911010: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.The Applicantis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00328

    Original file (ND02-00328.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 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 the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 900731 with a bad conduct characterization of service due to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00476

    Original file (ND99-00476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My cocaine usage happened because of my addiction to alcohol. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910205 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (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 Board found the applicant’s issues without basis with regard to the...

  • 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 | 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-01030

    Original file (ND00-01030.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. 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 issue 1, the Board PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...