Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00621
Original file (ND02-00621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ADAN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00621

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant listed Georgia Dept of Veterans Service as representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030116. 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. On the 3 rd Monday of March 2000, I was accused of a crime that supposedly had taken place the prior day. My discharge was based on accusations rather that convictions. I was discharged because of someone else’s actions on a separate day, which I was not involved. I was cleared of all accusations by NCIS, then I was charged with indecent act by my CO, which is not the reason I was discharged. Also I cannot stop two willing adults from having sex in the bathroom while I am in the kitchen, which is considered indecent act. After nearly 45 months of service my discharge was wrongfully given because of accusations.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of Settlement Statement from U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Letter of Congratulation from Vice President of Premier Lending Corporation
Copy of Marriage Certificate

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN               None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960820 - 960821  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960821               Date of Discharge: 000519

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 08 29
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: AD3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2.14

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NUC(2), AFEM(2), SSDR(2), GCM, NAVY"E"RIBBON

 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 :

000428:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Indecent acts.
         Award: Forfeiture of $586.00 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
000429:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000429:  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.
000503:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

000504:  Commander, Carrier Group FIVE 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 000519 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the 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. The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to substantiate his allegation that he was inequitably separated for the commission of a serious offense. 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. 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. 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 is evident 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 28, effective
30 Mar 00 until 29 Aug 00, 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00556

    Original file (ND01-00556.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 inequitable because it was based on the amount of individuals allegedly involved.” The applicant was found guilty at Summary Court Martial of violation of UCMJ Article 134, Indecent Acts. The applicant’s fifth issue states: “My discharged should be upgraded...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00839

    Original file (ND01-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011214. (DAV's Issue) After a review of the Former Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Force of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the request of the appellant of an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable discharge to that of a General, Under Honorable Conditions. The applicant is reminded that his legal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00763

    Original file (ND01-00763.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00763 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010507, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The 3 females were involved in an incident and we were brought before then, but they said we didn't have anything to do with it. The 3 females claimed they were Raped and when we all were in the security station 1 investigator MA1 C____ took a look at all of us and told us without the investigation even starting we...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00571

    Original file (ND01-00571.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010928. 980501: Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, may be considered by the NDRB.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00508

    Original file (ND01-00508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00508 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010313, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I tried for an appeal and did not get past the Command Master Chief. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00487

    Original file (ND01-00487.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00487 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010306, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Award: Restriction for 60 days, reduction to AR. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 000614 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00302

    Original file (ND00-00302.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 issue states: “The discharge is improper and my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 17 years of professional, dedicated service with no other adverse action. Thank you.” The NDRB reviewed the applicant’s service record and found the reason for the applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00628

    Original file (ND99-00628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00628 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990406, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable general/under honorable conditions. 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 requested her discharge be upgraded to general but provided no propriety, equity or post...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00307

    Original file (ND01-00307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00307 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010117, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 990203: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed a serious offense, and committed homosexual conduct by engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act as evidenced by nonjudicial...