Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00653
Original file (ND01-00653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-RMSN, USN
Docket No. ND01-00653

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010410, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011031. 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: GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. The discharge was inequitable because the applicant was before a navy mast. Even though the mast was in favor of the applicant. The discharge board expressed that due to the mast this was the only discharge that could be given.

2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provision of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.

 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               None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950922 - 951204  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951205               Date of Discharge: 990721

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 07 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: RMSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA                  Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, NRSSR, Pistol Sharpshooter Ribbon

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

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

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

Undated:         NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Illegally obtaining services, for use of the ship's phone lines in making just over one hundred dollars worth of long distance phone calls to sex lines and friends.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 7 days. [Extracted from CO's message dtd 990622).
990622:  Commanding Officer, USS DEFENDER (MCM-2), MAST APPPEAL: The day prior to communicating his threat RMSN L__ had been awarded Commanding Officer's non-judicial punishment for violation of article 134: Illegally obtaining services; for use of the ship's phone lines in making just over one hundred dollars worth of long distance phone calls to sex lines and friends. He was awarded 7 days restriction, 7 days extra duty, and fined in the amount of the phone charges attributed to him. In addition, I revoked his security clearance due to loss of confidence in his trustworthiness. Though I certainly expected him to be upset, I did not anticipate that he would cross such a significant threshold in his reaction. RMSN L_____ conveyed his intentions to kill the Commanding Officer with enough conviction to alarm his chain of command. He repeated his intentions with significant and detailed enough vision later in the day to cause the psychiatrist evaluating his medical condition to warn me to avoid RMSN L_____. I find his actions to be absolutely prejudicial to good order and discipline and explicitly in violation of the standards established by the UCMJ article 134 (Communication of a Threat).

990622:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [Extracted from case file].
960622:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board [Extracted from case file].
990702:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions.

990708:  Commanding Officer, USS DEFENDER (MCM-2) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

990719:  Commander, Mine Warfare Command authorized the applicant's discharge general under 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 990721 general under 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 found no inequity in the applicant’s discharge. The Board found the applicant was properly processed for separation following his NJP and communication of a death threat to his commanding officer. The NDRB noted the Administrative Board and commanding officer recommended the applicant be discharged with an other than honorable discharge. The GCMCA directed the applicant’s discharge with a general under honorable conditions. Relief is not warranted.

 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, positive community service, employment history, and clean police record. Relief 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 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00275

    Original file (ND00-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. No further information found in service record PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980313 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00869

    Original file (ND03-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “On November 19, 1998 I was discharged from the U.S. Navy with a General under Honorable Conditions Discharge. 981026: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and personality disorder.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01098

    Original file (ND03-01098.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990517 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01163

    Original file (ND03-01163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01163 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030626. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general under honorable conditions or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to re-enlist. Any I honorably turned myself in paying my own way from Miami to Chicago, after being held at separation for a while until I went to Captain’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01194

    Original file (ND01-01194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01194 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010920, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The applicant described the circumstances surrounding discharge and requested a change based on his post service conduct. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00437

    Original file (ND04-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00413

    Original file (ND03-00413.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    So I really don’t think misconduct is the reason for my separation that’s probably why my command doesn’t have a copy of my discharge package.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. 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, under its...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00392

    Original file (ND99-00392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT- Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00196

    Original file (ND04-00196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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) does not travel, and that all hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region. No indication of appeal in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00558

    Original file (ND04-00558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. He became angry and had thoughts of striking the supervisor and of suicide. The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent medical authority on 980812.