Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00285
Original file (ND02-00285.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00285

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020123, 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 designate a representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter the applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, D.C. area. The applicant did not respond.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020815. 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, as submitted

 1. I was young and not really aware of how this has affected my life. I am still in machine repair and work for a well established company. I would like to further my career but I am held back by my actions of a misguided youth. I am sorry for what I have done. Thank you for your time.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Special Award Certificate for Job Performance during Month of March 1993
1993 Employee of the Year Award (Northern Illinois Hospital Services, Inc.)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     831022 - 840618  COG
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 840619               Date of Discharge: 870305

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 02 08 17 (Doesn't exclude lost/confinement time.)
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 82
Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMF*        Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Navy "E" Ribbon
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 114

 *No Marks Found in service record.
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 :

850520:  Unauthorized absence from USS KITTY HAWK (CV63) at NAS North Island CA.
850528:  Returned on board USS KITTY HAWK (CV63) (8 days UA).

 850606:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: unauthorized absence from 85MAY20 to 85MAY28 (8 days).
         Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-1 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.
850606:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (unauthorized absence), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

850825:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 16AUG85 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0730, 16JUL85 from USS KITTY HAWK.
851022:  USS KITTY HAWK advised CNMPC that applicant declared a deserter and information received indicated member arrested by civil authorities in San Diego, CA on 21 Aug 85 for violation of the California Vehicle Code Section 10851 - auto theft and California Penal Code Section 487.3 - property taken is an automobile, firearm or farm animal. Applicant appeared in South Bay Municipal Court, Chula Vista, CA on 10 Sep 85, convicted of auto theft and sentenced to 120 days in county jail with 31 days credit for time served.
851102:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 21AUG85 (1249) in San Diego, CA. Returned to military control 02NOV85 (0505).

851102:  Pre-trial confinement at Navy Brig, Naval Station San Diego.

 851206:  Punishment of reduction in rate to FA suspended at CO's NJP of 85JUN06 vacated due to continued misconduct.
860102:  Special Court Martial
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (1 Specification).
          Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 850716 – 851102 (106 days/A).
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
          Sentence: CHL for 60 days, forfeiture of $410 per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1, bad conduct discharge.
         CA 860218: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
        
860102:  Joined Navy Brig, Naval Station San Diego, for confinement.

860131:  From confinement; to appellate leave.

860425:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
861023:  NC&PB clemency not granted; restoration denied.

870203:  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 870305 while on appellate leave with a bad conduct characterization of service due to conviction by a 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).
Issue 1. 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 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. 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. Relief not warranted.


Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560), Change 1/83, effective
28 Apr 83 until 14 Jun 87, 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, D.C. 20374-5023   


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00592

    Original file (ND03-00592.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My name is R_ J. S_, I was discharged from the Navy in 1992 with a bad conduct discharge I am writing to request an upgrade to general under honorable conditions, since being discharged I’ve never been in jail or even a speeding ticket. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00920

    Original file (ND01-00920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020130. 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. That is also incorrect I would like to know the real number of days that were bad days, Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01388

    Original file (ND03-01388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01388 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/ under honorable conditions. The Applicant’s service record provides clear evidence that the discharge authority directed discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00167

    Original file (ND03-00167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19880603 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. Issue 1: The action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based upon clemency only (C, Part IV) for a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00143

    Original file (ND01-00143.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00143 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001115, 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 (Member 1) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 660225 - 690718 HON...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00803

    Original file (ND99-00803.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000214. 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:Copy of DD Form 214 High school diploma Correctional Officer...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01238

    Original file (ND99-01238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I also submit to you another issue, that at the time all this was going on with my grandfather dying I was going through a divorce an was stressed when I was out at sea. I am asking that I be considered for a general discharge for reasons being that I have served in the navy honorably for 2 years and 9 months without prior non-judicial punishment. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00360

    Original file (ND00-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Intentions unknown.850423: Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1700, onboard Naval Station Philadelphia, PA. (25 days UA).850426: Applicant commenced unauthorized absence at 0730, 85APR26, while being processed by NAVSTA Phila, PA for transfer to USS PELELIU (LHA 5) under technical arrest orders. Sentence: Confinement for 31 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01022

    Original file (ND00-01022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. 901015: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA from USS KITTY HAWK, from 0700-0830, 901007, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Derelict in the performance of duty on or about 901007 by failing to clean work center space in a timely manner. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on...

  • 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.