Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00012
Original file (ND02-00012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00012

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010926, 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 020517. 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/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues

 Prior to the documentary discharge review, the applicant introduced no issues as block 8 on the DD Form 293 is blank.


Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of DD Form 215
 Letter from Applicant
 Diagnosis from Mother's Doctor
Letter from Mother's Doctor
 Copy of Mothers Consultation Record
 Medical Statement from Applicant's Mother (4pgs)
 Character Reference Letters (2)



PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               None
          Inactive: USNR (DEP)     880302 - 890206  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 890207               Date of Discharge: 910910

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 01 17
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (24 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 73
Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NOB                  Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA: 2.80

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 93

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

891213:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty from 0520 until 0743, 891005, Spec 2: UA from appointed place of duty from 0520 until 0642, 891011, Spec 3: UA from appointed place of duty from 0520, 891012 until 1705, 891018(6days/S), Spec 4: UA from appointed place of duty from 0520, 891023 until 2124, 891121(29days/S).
         Award: Forfeiture of $349.00 pay per month for 1 month, correctional custody for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
891213:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Violation of Article 86: UA from appointed place of duty, to wit: SNM was UA from 0520 until 0743 on 891005, Spec 2: UA from appointed place of duty, to wit: SNM was UA from 0520 until 0620 on 891011, Spec 3: UA, to wit: SNM was UA from 0520, 891012 until 1705, 891018, Spec 4: UA, to wit: SNM was UA from 0520, 891023 until 2124, 891121.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

900109:  That portion of correctional custody remaining on 901009 in this case of AR P____ L. H____, 331-70-0028, is remitted.
900228:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 900228 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0630, 900129 from NATTC MILLINGTON, TN.

 900402:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by McCraken County Sheriff Department in Paducah, KY at 1620, 900328. Returned to military control 900328 (1620). Retained onboard NATTC MILLINGTON, TN for Disciplinary Action/Disposition. .

900521:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (2) Specifications.
         Specification 1: 900125 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: Extra Military Instruction BKS S-444, NAS MEMPHIS MILLINGTON, TN, Specification 2: UA 900129 until apprehension on or about 900328(58days/A); Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 91: Failure to obey a lawful order to report to the duty CC for Extra Military Instruction on or about 900125.
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1 and 2 thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and specification thereunder, guity.
         Sentence: Conf for 4 months, forfeiture of $482.00 pay per month for 6 months, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 900717: Sentence approved and except for the bad conduct discharge will be duly executed but the execution of that portion thereof adjudging confinement in excess of 90 days is suspended for a period of 12 months from the date sentence is adjudged at which time unless sooner vacated the suspended portion of the confinement will be remitted without further action.
900523:  Applicant waived clemency review.
         
900611:  From confinement; to appellate leave.
910118:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
910910:  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 910910 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (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 introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board.

 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 (C, Part IV). The applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the applicant’s service record and additional documentation provided for review devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Relief denied.

 The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. The discharge was proper and equitable. Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. 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 more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and proof of his not using drugs, are examples of verifiable documents that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, 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 Rm 309
                   Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01065

    Original file (ND99-01065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.900705: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from 900518 to 900521(3days/S).Award: Forfeiture of $362.00 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. At this time, the applicant has provided only a high school diploma as documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00759

    Original file (ND03-00759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence: Confinement for 60 days, forfeiture of $540.00 pay per month for 2 months, Bad Conduct discharge. 940411: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86- unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01110

    Original file (ND99-01110.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. 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): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 870930 - 880508 COG...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00442

    Original file (ND00-00442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-DCFR, USN Docket No. Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 1113, 900705 onboard USS FAIRFAX COUNTY at Little Creek, VA. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910329 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00943

    Original file (ND99-00943.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).The applicant’s first issue states: “The discharge was unfair because the CPO of my division discriminated against me constantly for unknown reasons which created a negative response from me.” The applicant provided no documentation to support this issue and the NDRB found no evidence in the record to support it. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01230

    Original file (ND99-01230.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.891011: Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant apprehended by military authorities on 891016 (2200) at Enlisted Club onboard NAS JACKSONVILLE, FL. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00861

    Original file (ND02-00861.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 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 871106 Date of Discharge: 930729 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 05 05 26 (does not exclude lost time) Inactive: 00 02 27 After a thorough...

  • 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 | 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00124

    Original file (ND04-00124.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00124 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031022. Thank you so much for your time and understanding.” _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.