Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00534
Original file (ND02-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-MM3, USN
Docket No. ND02-00534

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020213, 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 list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 021206. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).
.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as submitted
1. My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 40 months of service with no other adverse action. I never even had so much as received EMI. All my evals (which are enclosed) where 3.0 or higher except for the captains mast eval, the last eval before captains mast was a 4.29 along with an early promote.
2. The discharge is improper because part of the charges for captain's mast was adultery even though my wife and I were legally separated and living apart at the time. I would also like to add that the student at the time (MM3 D_) is now my fianc é and the mother of my 8 month old son J_ L_ E_. I know that fraternization was wrong but should I continue to be punished for falling in love, because if I hadn't I wouldn't have a beautiful son now.
3. The discharge is improper because I was denied legal counsel by Navy legal because my wife at the time was using there service and they said it was a conflict of interest. Buy the time I could speak to a lawyer about my discharge the paper work was completed and submitted.
4. Thank you for your time.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Evaluation report and counseling record dated December 3, 1997
Evaluation report and counseling record dated July 16, 1998
 Evaluation report and counseling record dated January 26, 1999
Evaluation report and counseling record dated March 14, 2000
Evaluation report and counseling record dated April 5, 2000
 Applicant 's DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960618 - 970611  COG
         Active: USN                        970612 - 990613  HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 990614               Date of Discharge: 001011

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 03 28
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 80
Highest Rate: MM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.80 (5)    Behavior: 3.20 (5)                OTA: 3.37

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

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990614:  Applicant reenlisted for 6 years.

 000328:  Psychiatric evaluation: Axis I: Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of emotions and conduct. Alcohol abuse, rule out dependence. Rule out: PTSD. Rule out: MMD. Axis II: Personality disorder, NOS, with antisocial and borderline features.
000329:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey by wrongfully fraternizing with student personnel about March 2000, violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Wrongfully have sexual intercourse with MM3, a married woman not his wife about March 2000.
          Award: Forfeiture of $656 per month for 2 months, oral reprimand, reduction to MM3. No indication of appeal in the record.
000331:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of a personality disorder and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000331:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult 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.
000412:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of a personality disorder and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000728:  CNPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 001011 under other than 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. Despite the positive aspects of the Applicant’s record, a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the service member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on one occasion for the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his 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. An upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.
Issue 2. The record states the student was married with whom the Applicant had sexual relations. Therefore, the Applicant committed adultery, no matter what his own married status was at the time. While he may feel that falling in love was a factor 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.

Issue 3. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support his allegation that he was improperly denied legal counsel for his administrative separation. The Board found no indication in the record that he was improperly processed for separation. 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 inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity 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), Change 30, dated 7 Nov 00, effective 30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, 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 " 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00067

    Original file (ND03-00067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00067 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021009, 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 Character Reference ltr from S_ S_, Chief of Police, dtd Aug 28, 2002 Letter from Employer, J_ S_, Service Manager, Railserve Inc.,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00403

    Original file (ND99-00403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support her...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00666

    Original file (ND03-00666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to misconduct. MM2 P_ pleaded guilty at summary court-martial on 22 June 2000 to violating a general order by engaging in hazing activities on board USS ENTERPRISE. Accordingly, I recommend that MM2 P_ be discharged from the naval service for homosexual conduct with a characterization of other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00090

    Original file (ND02-00090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With this discharge there in nothing I can do for them or myself. 010123: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by NJP held on 000725 and a foreign civil conviction of 001205 during current enlistment, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJP held on 000725 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 121, larceny of two debit check cards and wrongfully obtaining...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01096

    Original file (ND99-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states the “Pattern of Misconduct” and “Serious Offense” are not supported and do not warrant separation with a characterization of General Discharge and a RE-4 code. Based on the applicant’s documented misconduct, his Commanding Officer was within his legal authority to discharge the applicant for Commission of a serious offense and characterize his discharge as General (under Honorable conditions). The NDRB reviews the propriety (did the Navy follow its own rules in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00182

    Original file (ND01-00182.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. 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: “Being held past my EAOS, I was processed for termination from service as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00765

    Original file (ND99-00765.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000417. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980206 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (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).Regarding the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00138

    Original file (ND02-00138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00138 Applicant’s Request This application for discharge review, received 011022, requested that the characterization of service awarded to the Applicant upon his discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. In submitting DD Form 293 Review of Discharge, I am requesting the board update my discharge to Honorable and change my reentry code to allow me to reenlist and continue serving my country.