Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00556
Original file (ND01-00556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AOAN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00556

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010321, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The discharge was inequitable because it was based on the amount of individuals allegedly involved.

2. My discharge should be upgraded because of the important role I played in the military. (qualifications, leadership, etc.)

3. My discharge should be upgraded because I except and understand my involvement of the incident.

4. My discharged should be upgraded because I want to prove myself to my family, the military and myself that I salvagable, and I can make better decisions.

5. My discharged should be upgraded because I want to be apart of the military again.

6. The investigation leading up to my discharge was misleading and unjust. Witnesses were provoked into making false statements.

7. Before any court-martials are Art 15 took place were were punished and ridiculed by superiors (E-7 to O-4) and subordinates in my squadron.

8. N.C.I.S. agents did not use evidence retreived from the room(s) were the incidence took place in determining guilty or innocence.

9. INDECENT ACTS I BELIEVE IS SERIOUS, but I do not believe a summary court-martial and discharge (O.T.H.) were fair.

I am a law abiding citizen with great work background, but the military is were I want to be.

 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)     960623 - 961027  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 961028               Date of Discharge: 000519

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 22
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: AO3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (5)    Behavior: 3.00 (5)                OTA: 3.23

Military Decorations: NMCAM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFEM (2), NER, SSDR (2), NMCOSR (3), NUC (2)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

981104:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation on 31Aug98, to wit: having an unauthorized guest in his quarters.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
000428:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: Indecent act, to wit: having sex in the presence of other people.
         Finding: to Charge I and the specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Forfeiture of $450.00, restriction for 60 days, reduced to ADAN.
         CA action 000502: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

000429:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000429:          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.
000503:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): AOAN (applicant) was convicted at a Summary Court-martial for committing indecent acts after thoroughly reviewing the investigation and court-martial record of trial, I find that AOAN (applicant's) conduct was inexcusable and intolerable as well as criminal. His conduct is a significant departure from that expected of members of the naval service. Therefore, I strongly recommend that AOAN (applicant) be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge.

000504:  Commander, Carrier Group FIVE 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 000519 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 applicant’s first issue states: “The discharge was inequitable because it was based on the amount of individuals allegedly involved.” The applicant was found guilty at Summary Court Martial of violation of UCMJ Article 134, Indecent Acts. The Board found no inequity in the discharge. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s second issue states: “My discharge should be upgraded because of the important role I played in the military. (qualifications, leadership, etc.).” The applicant’s misconduct outweighed the positive contributions he made during his enlistment. The Other Than Honorable discharge accurately characterizes the applicant’s service. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s third issue states: “My discharge should be upgraded because I except and understand my involvement of the incident.” The Board found this issue non decisional. Remorse, acceptance or understanding of the offense committed are not grounds for which this Board will grant relief. Relief is not warranted.

 The applicant’s fourth issue states: “My discharged should be upgraded because I want to prove myself to my family, the military and myself that I salvageable, and I can make better decisions.” The Board found this issue non decisional. The Board will not grant relief as a means for an applicant to “prove himself.” The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge. 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate his sobriety, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief is not warranted.

The applicant’s fifth issue states: “My discharged should be upgraded because I want to be apart of the military again.” The Board found this issue non decisional. The applicant’s desire to rejoin the service is not reason for the Board to grant relief. Relief not warranted.

The applicant’s sixth and seventh issues state: “The investigation leading up to my discharge was misleading and unjust. Witnesses were provoked into making false statements.” And “Before any court-martials are Art 15 took place we were punished and ridiculed by superiors (E-7 to O-4) and subordinates in my squadron.” After review of the applicant’s service record, the Board found no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. The applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his issues. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s eighth issue states: “N.C.I.S. agents did not use evidence retrieved from the room(s) were the incidence took place in determining guilty or innocence.” The applicant did not adequately explain the relevance of this issue. The record shows the applicant was found guilty at Summary Court Martial of Indecent Acts. Relief is denied.

The applicant’s ninth issue states: “INDECENT ACTS I BELIEVE IS SERIOUS, but I do not believe a summary court-martial and discharge (O.T.H.) were fair.” The Board found no impropriety or inequity in the applicant’s discharge. The applicant’s misconduct warranted separation with a characterization of Other Than Honorable. Relief is denied.
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 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00621

    Original file (ND02-00621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After nearly 45 months of service my discharge was wrongfully given because of accusations. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 000519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense (A). You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00763

    Original file (ND01-00763.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00763 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010507, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The 3 females were involved in an incident and we were brought before then, but they said we didn't have anything to do with it. The 3 females claimed they were Raped and when we all were in the security station 1 investigator MA1 C____ took a look at all of us and told us without the investigation even starting we...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00508

    Original file (ND01-00508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00508 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I tried for an appeal and did not get past the Command Master Chief. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01407

    Original file (ND03-01407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “12 years.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00356

    Original file (ND02-00356.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00356 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Michigan Dept of Social Services, Medical Needs, ICO N_ C_, dtd 6/15/99 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00344

    Original file (ND04-00344.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Itemized list of checks Bankruptcy paperworkChain of Command commentsCopy of counseling chit from MSCM B_ Letter from Board For Correction of Naval Records, dated November 13,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00288

    Original file (ND04-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. They stated that they felt the harassment charges were to serious to dismiss based on the allegations but they didn’t feel like it was serious enough to take to court martial, and I don’t feel that it was fair and just. I felt that the entire time this situation was going on chiefs.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00396

    Original file (ND01-00396.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00034

    Original file (ND03-00034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I believe that my discharge, and its characterization, was based upon administrative expedience and my limited time aboard, rather than my potential for further service to the Navy. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00380

    Original file (ND02-00380.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to the application, the Civilian Counsel informed the Board that he does not represent the Applicant in regards to his Application for Review of Discharge. Patient reported having 45 days of confinement for going UA and stated he is going to be discharged. The Applicant 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.