Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00484
Original file (ND02-00484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND02-00484

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020311, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington, DC Area. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021115. 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

 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 Certified Navy-Marine Corps of Military Review (3pgs)
Copy of Special Court-Martial Order (3pgs)
Copy of Appellate Review Petition (2pgs)
Letter from Applicant
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)     900525 - 900729  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900730               Date of Discharge: 930513

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 28
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 11                        AFQT: 35

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                  Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: SASMwb*, NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 223

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 :

910419:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: (2 Specifications), Spec 1: Insubordinate conduct toward a Petty Officer on 910406; Spec 2: Insubordinate conduct toward a Chief Petty Officer on 910406.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 20 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
910419:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Minor misconduct due to disrespect to a Petty Officer and Chief Petty Officer and failure to obey a lawful order), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911023:  Summary Court-Martial.
         Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: UA from unit on or about 910717 to 910922 (67days/S), violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Miss movement of USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) on or about 910820.
         Sentence: Confinement for 30 days, forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 1 month, reduced to E-1.
         CA action 911030: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

911116:  Released from confinement and returned to full duty.
920318:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 920207 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0545, 920107 from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).

920424:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 920423 (0730) at Omaha, NE. Returned to military control 920423 (0905). Orig retained custody pending transfer to USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).

920507:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 920423 (0730) at Omaha, NE. Returned to military control 920423 (0905). Orig retained custody pending transfer to USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).

920601:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (3) Specifications;
         Specification 1: Unauthorized absence from unit from 911122 to 911224 [42 days/S.]
         Specification 2: Unauthorized absence from unit from 911226 to 920102, [7days/S]; Specification 3: Unauthorized absence from unit from 920107 to 920420 [107days/S].
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1, 2 and 3 thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: CHL for 90 days, forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 3 months, and to be discharged with a Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 920930: Sentence approved and, except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, will be executed. The execution of that portion of the sentence adjudging confinement in excess of 45 days is hereby suspended for a period of 12 months from the date of trial, at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence will be remitted without further action.

920601:  Joined the Naval Brig, Naval Station Norfolk, VA, for confinement.

920707:  Released from confinement and placed in appellate leave.

920708:  Applicant waived clemency review. [Extracted from NC&PB computer system].
930129:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
930513:  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 930513 with a bad conduct discharge due to conviction 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. Relief denied.

 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. The Applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 19984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984) enclosure (1), Chapter 2, paragraph 2.24, COURT-MARTIAL SPECIFICATION, PRESUMPTION CONCERNING.

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 " 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:

                  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 | ND99-00923

    Original file (ND99-00923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AOAR, USN Docket No. ND99-00923 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990629, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01015

    Original file (ND04-01015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01015 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040610. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Letter from Applicant dated June 25, 2004 Letter from D_ W_, Corrections Social Worker, State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections dated June 22, 2004 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00105

    Original file (ND02-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 5815-010 (formerly 3640420).The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600312

    Original file (ND0600312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051207. No indication of appeal in the record.900907: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed of duty, restricted muster 900907. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were sufficient to merit clemency (C).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00263

    Original file (ND00-00263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt instructed to stop drinking.950120: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0700, 20Jan95. At that time the hospital staff did not know that the patient’s command had received discharge authority with a separation date of 29 Apr 95 and had arranged for him to be separated with an Other Than Honorable discharge. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, for unauthorized absence for a period in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00960

    Original file (ND02-00960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00960 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020624, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030214. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00936

    Original file (ND04-00936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “convenience of the government reenlistment code: RE-1.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. and RIR to E-3.960214: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of weight control failure with the least favorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00518

    Original file (ND99-00518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00518 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990302, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. SO I ASK AGAIN PLEASE CONSIDER MY APPLICATION. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00278

    Original file (ND03-00278.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions 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:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910425 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00658

    Original file (ND04-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION A FEW MONTHS HAD GONE BY AND I TOLD FIRST CLASS T_ THAT I DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH PETTY OFFICER W_. SO I DIDN’T LIKE WHAT HE WAS SAYING TO ME, SO I FINISHED THE JOB AND WENT BACK TO MY DIVISION.