Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00417
Original file (ND02-00417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SA, USN
Docket No. ND02-00417

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020221, 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 021029. 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 - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

 1. The injuries caused by the Secret Service member C_ and son J_ C_ not of Secret Service or other C_ family members; via their use of attempted deadly force while ashore and aboard the USS Detroit AOE 04 while in the PNSY/CIA zones, while (Applicant) USN/DON/Don was serving active/reserve/TAD/TADY duties aboard or ashore the commands, duty stations, etc for the USN/USS Detroit Aoe 4, Combat Logististic Squadron Two (COMLOGRUN TWO), Leonardo, NJ/Navy weapons station (NWS) Earle. Also all other command post while serving for the US Department of Defense. As well as others and all homes, residences, employments of (Applicant) since 1977 - 1999. The injuries sustained from the Secret Service, via the C_ crime families, from the shores of Philadelphia, PN, Dallas, TX, Austin, TX, Tucson, AZ at the other five or more head injuries caused by the C_/Secret Service. Please note there are other sites of similar unreported or undefended shootings spemes from both the C_ family member and the US Secret Service.

In regards to the USS Detroit or other DOD duty stations of (Applicant) in which the C_(s) and the Secret Service Agents/etc stalked, harasses, delayed, injured by firearms, or other in a uncontrolled, unrestricted manner, to further commit criminal misconduct or official distrainment for the gain of inheritable and endangering the life of the entire I_ family. Since only ___ 24 hrs period in which the life threatening head injuries occurred concurrently with ___ or hits to (Applicant), resulting in (8) eight switches in one events and another while on boot camp leave and recruiting assignments while in Tucson, Az around 90 01 xx, it seem unimportant both then and now to the US

Please note my recall to the un/official misconduct of the then Captain(s)/Commanding Officer (CO) and Executive Officer (EO) and Medical Officer(s) of the USS Detroit AOE 04 is to include the scars after 7-12 days after on board surgery and medical treatment after the gunshot injuries sustained by (Applicant) USN/DOD/USSS Detroit YN MAA/Etc. In which the CO commented ___ Captain/EO mast/screening as stretch, that the Medical officer was asked if it played in any part of the behavior, duty, capacity, conduct of (Applicant) USN, before awarding the maximum sentence or reward for 3-days. Bread and Water inside the Philly naval bridge or jail, aka federal pent nary, PNSY. Served and no further review as of yet. Noting with doctor's consent and the withholding of criminal misconduct, neglect on the part of the USN/DOD and US government in general upon (Applicant). With the notable admissancews of the injuries sustained by (Applicant) by USNor Secret Service weapons at the convince or possession of C_/Secret Service from the QD Quarter Deck of the USS Detroit or other location ___ 24 hour period, now in question.

Please make a note, to the effect the C_(s)/Secret Service that caused other head injuries, assaults, theft of classified or other such paperwork, possessions, assets, check (forgery), stalking, harassment and other influence and association to cause undue harm and injuries to (Applicant), and perhaps other members of the (Applicant's) family or other Department of Defense personnel. The injuries listed and referred all cause serious head injury to (Applicant) which all had to be treated, examined and or released into hospital or clinic or medical treatment areas. The entire crew of the USS Detroit or even narrowed down to the executive (X) Division of the USS Detroit including the (Command Master Chief Office), in which (Applicant) was assigned as the asst to the and for the (CMCO) was not informed or able to notice the head injuries and eight switches, in fact the ordeal leading to the Captain mast, ordered by encounter with (Applicant) on Veteran Day aboard the USS Detroit by another (YN) or Yeoman, on or of the same duty sections, for a uniform Plan of the Day (POD) alleged violation.

Also notable in the events, leading to (Applicant) quitting or requesting dismissal from the USN/DON/DOD from the USS DETROIT before being TADY or temporarily additional duty or transfer order to the Squadron headquarter or the fleet in which Irvin was assigned. The orders filed were only for the two period of deployment training to Cuba: however the CO of the COMLOGRUN TWO assigned (Applicant) to a permanent YN/MAA desk or port orders and (TAO) Technical Arrest Orders department of the USN MAA depart via COMLOGRUN TWO MAA/MASTER-AT-ARMS/CHIEF AND ASTT CHIEF MAA DIV. Since the CO of the USS DETRIOT request accompanied the Navy Review Board for reported misconduct on (Applicant's) part, or navy officially terms it pattern of misconduct on the DD-214 release of active duty form.

This so-called pattern of misconduct needs more explanation, for both (Applicant) and at the request of the CO and other qualified command staff of the COMLOGRUN TWO/USN/DOD to satisfy the legal ground to counter charge of inflict similar pattern of misconduct on the behalf of the US Secret Service or accomplishes within the USN of r or there forms of DOD, aka also known as combatants, or the people reasonable for the serious illegal conduct leading to gunshot, gunfire ___ Secret Service or C_ Mafia like family

Also, (Applicant), would like to make note he served as armed rover patrol, in not (1) one but all duty section armed rover patrol aboard the USS Detroit AOE 04, fast combated support vessels other command post via his time as reserve or active duty status for the USN/DOD. Received his ESWS achievement medal as Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist has E-3, E-4 and E-2, also ___ 100% or perfect scores on all Military Leadership, Or other examinations, test from Boot Camp as first ever in naval history to achieve since academic standing. (Applicant) USN served more time as rover or on watch then any other person qualified on board, and was considered mandatory-armed rover security patrol filling or replacement, and was named rover caption of the watch. Please note in all the duty served, no inquiry or questions into the many times (Applicant) pulled, and use and fire his Colt .45 handgun and navy magazine or amminunation at any time then or now

Since the USN release (Applicant) on or about 92 Feb 14 he reports the C_(S) and other member of the Secret Service have assaulted, stolen, stalked, and ordered other to assault, and injury (Applicant) as per ___ request (Applicant) will wait for further action and continued misconduct and other unauthorized deadly use of force from the Secret Service/C_ or other known accomplishes in simplifier crime past, present and future. When will the Secret Service and or Us Navy/Department of Defense and or the C_(s) be held responsible, liable and charge in the above mentioned and other unreported crimes in this country or other countries.

(Applicant) attempts to retain a PEACE BOND and trial court date charging the Secret Service aka C_(s) and others witnessing or involved accomplishes in the injuries so far rewarded to (Applicant) while serving in USN or DoD, or prior to enlistment upon the USN. For example the five other head injuries upon (Applicant) caused or attempted by the C_(s) and the Secret Service in Tucson, Arizona alone, notable the one caused after boot camp, upon leave or liberty in Tucson, Arizonia prior to reporting to NTTCD Ft.Devins, MA/ USAISD/BMCD/ Electronic Warfare Intercept during Desert Storm/ Shield via the CTR (Cytological Technical Training Command Post. All places of work and rest have been interfered by the distrainment of the C_ and Secret Service for over 21 years.

(Applicant) wishes the US/US NAVY/ DoD would take care of their own, before (Applicant) take the matter, control, and fate of the C_ in his own ways. Like it or not this is the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth, in military or other accords. The USN/DOD have allowed this to happen more than once, and need to cooperate before more life are ruined, destroyed and injuries by the accused. Watch out for counter charges or similar action to reoccurred, please note you have list control, more than the Secret Service and will be held accountable and responsible, some day, some way. Sincerely,

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Letter from Applicant dated January 21, 2002 (5 pages)
Letter from Applicant dated April 18, 1996
Letter from US Department of Justice to Applicant dated August 19, 1999
Copy of hand-written note from Applicant, undated
Copy of Civil Rights matters
Letter to Agent, US Secret Service, undated
Letter from United States Secret Service dated April 8, 1996
PIMA County Consolidated Justice Courts dated December 31, 1998 and December 3, 1993
Letter from DON to Senator H_, dated July 24, 1998
Letter from Applicant to NDRB, undated
Copy of DD Form 293 dated April 29, 1999
Eighteen pages from Applicant's service record
Copy of certificate dated April 23, 1994
Applicant's résumé
Presentation of Qualifications

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900802 - 901031  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 901101               Date of Discharge: 920214

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 03 14
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 30                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 14/15            AFQT: 77

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.20 (2)    Behavior: 3.10 (2)                OTA: 3.30

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – Pattern of misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910410:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongful possession and consumption of an alcoholic beverage by a minor.
         Award: Forfeiture of $195 per month for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to SA, oral admonition. Restriction suspended for 6 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
910410:  Retention Warning from Naval Technical Training Center Detachment, Ft. Devens, MA: Advised of deficiency (Drunk and disorderly, and failure to report for muster), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911205:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90: Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 91 (2 specs): (1) Willful disobedience of warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, (2) Contempt or disrespect towards warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Provoking speech or gestures.
         Award: Confinement on bread and water for 3 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
911209:  Retention Warning from USS DETROIT (AOE 4): Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two Article 15, UCMJ nonjudicial punishments during the current enlistment; violation of UCMJ, to wit: Art. 134, wrongful possession and consumption of an alcoholic beverage by a minor, and for the commission of serious offenses, as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ, to wit: Art 90, willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer, violation of the UCMJ, Art 91, willful disobedience of warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, violation of the UCMJ, Art 107, provoking speech or gestures), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911220:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89: Disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer on 17 Dec 91, to wit: repeatedly interrupting LCdr, raising his voice, and conducting himself in an impertinent, insolent manner towards LCdr.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 per month for 1 month, reduction to SA. No indication of appeal in the record.
911220:  USS DETROIT (AOE 4) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the service record and all misconduct occurring during the current enlistment.
911220:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted 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.
920109:  Commanding Officer, USS DETROIT (AOE 4) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses and a pattern of misconduct.

920115:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 920214 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (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’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.
 The Board found no documentation to support the Applicant’s allegations that he was unfairly treated aboard the USS Detroit or by the Navy, or that he was unfairly denied medical treatment or placement on limited duty. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions. The positive aspects of the Applicant’s service record do not mitigate his misconduct. 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 the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. While he may feel that alleged persecution from the Secret Service and/or from a specified family, and personal injuries that occurred while on active duty were factors that contributed to his actions, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. 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. Relief not warranted.

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. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.




 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500505

    Original file (ND0500505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No history of headache medication. 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:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00510

    Original file (ND00-00510.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.910901: [USS MOUNT WHITNEY (LCC-20)] notified applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct an misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense [EXTRACTED FROM CO'S MESSAGE]. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 911220 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01255

    Original file (ND02-01255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    870529: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: (3 Specifications) , Specification 1 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0800, 870516, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did remain so absent until on or about 1130, 870516; Specification 2 : In that SNM, on active duty, USS CHANDLER (DDG-996), did, on or about 0500, 870517, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS CHANDLER (DDG-996) and did...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01027

    Original file (ND02-01027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020715, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. 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: USNR (DEP) 990730 - 991004 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501027

    Original file (ND0501027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01027 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050601. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). During my absence (AWOL), a new Captain took over the “US S Fresno (LST-1182).” The old Captain was aware of the situation and he left no information or instruction to the new Captain as to what was going on in the ship’s office.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00872

    Original file (ND00-00872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter to Department of Veterans Affairs dated September 17, 1993 from applicant Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs dated October 18, 1994 to applicant PART...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00961

    Original file (ND02-00961.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. 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, a positive employment record, documentation of community service,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00223

    Original file (ND02-00223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00223 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020109, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. January 16, 1990 military medical record (Enclosure 3) that states my auto accident and the many health problems I experienced and continue to experience as a result. People did not understand what was happening to me, and I was too nayve to know how to get the military to see...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00530

    Original file (ND02-00530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge, a General under honorable conditions, based on a pattern of misconduct, due to the abuse of alcohol is unfair because I sought medical treatment several times for my back problems that I injured while performing my duties on board my ship USS LEFTWICH (DD-984). 880415: USS LEFTWICH (DD-984) notified Applicant of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by three or more...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500521

    Original file (ND0500521.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SR, USN Docket No. * I was, for the 1st 30 days on board my command. After my discharge.