Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00871
Original file (ND01-00871.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SK3, USN
Docket No. ND01-00871

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010619, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020110. 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 administrative separation board I had gave me a General discharge with a 12 month discharge suspension, but the CO had me immediately discharged and the suspension waived. I felt it was unfair the way the CO went about to get me discharged from the military. The misdemeanor civilian offense is dismissed.

2. Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge. My conduct and efficiency rating and marks were good and commendable.

3. Under current standards, I would not receive the type of discharge I did. In the military today, there are classes and counseling available and I went through and completed counseling provided successfully and had my charge dismissed. This was my first and only offense.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
 Superior Court of California Order dtd 10 Apr 01, setting aside conviction and dismissing the charges
United Education Institute Certificate for Completion of Networking Technology dtd 13 Jun 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     911018 - 920803  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920804               Date of Discharge: 990409

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 06 08 06
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4 (4, 25, 12 month extensions)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 44

 Highest Rate: SK3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.8(3)               Behavior: 4.0 (3)                 OTA: 3.93 (4.0 evals)
                  3.83 (6)                 3.83(6)                  Unavailable (5.0 evals)

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Navy "E" Ribbon (2), MUC, NDSM, SSDR(2), AFEM, SWASM, GCM (2)

 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 :

920804:  Enlisted for a term of four years.

960804:  Extended enlistment for 4 months.

961204:  Extended enlistment for 25 months.

 981214:  Unauthorized absence from 0730, 14Dec98. Detained by civilian authorities.

981224:  Released by civilian authorities and return to military control at 1400, 24Dec98. On unauthorized absence for a period of 10 days and six hours.

980203:  San Diego Municipal Court: Convicted of Spousal abuse and Brandishing a Weapon.
         Sentence: 18 months probation and/or pay fine of $7,000, satisfactorily complete Domestic Violence Program.

980508:  Termination of Work Projects Program (domestic violence program) since applicant failed to satisfactorily complete the conditions of the Public Service Program. Actually worked 11 of 15.

 990104:  Extended enlistment for 12 months.

 990113:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge in which the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious civilian offense and civilian convictions as evidenced by the San Diego Municipal Court Case ----------- Juris VR---- and by SK3 (Applicant)'s guilty plea to two counts (First Count PC273.5(a): Spousal Abuse and Sixth Count PC417(a)[1]: Brandishing a Weapon in a threatening manner) in San Diego Municipal Court date -2-03-98. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation (and/or pay a fine of $7,000) and violated the conditions of his probation. In addition, he was required to, but failed to satisfactorily complete the Domestic Violence Program.
990120:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
990301:  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 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions). By a vote of 2 to 1, recommended discharge be suspended.

990301:  Letter of Dissention: Board member felt the member was guilty of a serious offense and his chances for rehabilitation were not good. He was arrested twice already for the same offense.

990412:  Commanding Officer Fleet Hospital Operations and Training Command, Camp Pendleton, advised BUPERS, applicant's discharge was directed with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious military or civilian offense. CO's letter of 12Apr99 to BUPERS states: "I concur with the findings of the board that SK3 (Applicant) should be discharge from the Naval Service. I do not concur with the recommendation that the characterization of service should be General (Under Honorable Conditions) and that his discharge be suspended for 12 months. Since the board decided to discharge SK3 (Applicant) with a General (Under Honorable Conditions), I strongly recommended that SK3 (Applicant) be discharged immediately from the Naval Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) and that the suspension be waived."

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990409 with a 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).

Issue 1. The Board found no inequity or impropriety in the fact that the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge rather than following the Administrative Discharge Board’s recommendation that the discharge be suspended. Relief is denied.

Issue 2. A discharge under honorable conditions is warranted when negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. T he applicant’s service was marred by the commission of a serious offense. The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by non-judicial or judicial proceedings. The applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. The Board found that the applicant’s high conduct and efficiency ratings likely mitigated against his receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which would be more commonly awarded for his offense. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

Issue 3. The Board determined that under today’s standards, the applicant would receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions for the offense he committed, which resulted in his discharge. The applicant implies that a permissive doctrine exists whereby one in the military is allowed a “single misdeed”. The Board believes that the applicant is confusing this with the civilian world wherein some offenses are treated with leniency because they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. No such leniency exists in the military. The applicant is responsible for his actions and must accept the consequences of his misdeeds. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.

 He 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. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Legal representation at a personal appearance hearing is highly recommended but not required. Relief denied.



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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01399

    Original file (ND04-01399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 940223 Date of Discharge: 980222 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00409

    Original file (ND00-00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971113 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to civil conviction (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).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01009

    Original file (ND00-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, each time I did someone told the Squadron Commander that I was being abusive to my wife. In response to the applicant’s issue 3, the applicant was given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because the Navy took the applicant’s service record into account when they characterized his discharge. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01165

    Original file (ND99-01165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 determined this issue is without merit. This discharge would have been Honorable. He was properly discharged for commission of a serious offense based on his civilian conviction.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01205

    Original file (MD02-01205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020823, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed. The Board will determine which reason for discharge should have been assigned based upon the facts and circumstances before the Board, including the service regulations governing the reasons for discharge at that time, to determine whether relief is warranted. Applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01205

    Original file (ND03-01205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970109 - 970406 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970407 Date of Discharge: 990512 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 06 Inactive: None Award: Not found in service record....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00411

    Original file (ND00-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MM1 (applicant) went to CO's NJP on board USS MCKEE (AS-41) 96NOV27, for Article 107, false official statement to XO, USS MCKEE, regarding his alleged affair with SK3 H_ and the adultery charge. In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board found that the applicant’s Commanding Officer has the authority to recommend administrative separation for any individual in his command who had committed misconduct. This is a non-decisional issue for the Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00494

    Original file (ND01-00494.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00494 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to convenience of the government. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION On this basis, he petitions the Board’s relief with re characterization of discharge to full honorable and a narrative reason upgrade to convenience of the government.” While the NDRB is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00371

    Original file (ND02-00371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00371 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020208, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 960604: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and misconduct due to civil conviction.960610: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00869

    Original file (ND00-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128 (2 specifications): Specification 1: Unlawful touch on 20Jan98. The applicant did not provide any of these documents. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.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: