Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00944
Original file (ND02-00944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SHSN, USN
Docket No. ND02-00944

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review hearing was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20031009. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on XXXXXX. 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. Discharged in absentia.

 If appropriate add the following:
The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation should read: “_____________” vice “__________”. The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.







SPN CODE HKQ
THIS IS THE CORRECT SHELL FOR COSO 930305 - 930627.
THE FINDING FOR MISCONDUCT IS EFFECTIVE FOR 930305 - 940721. HOWEVER, A SPN CODE CHANGE OCCURRED ON 930628 WHICH CHANGED THE WORDING USED ON THE DD-214 FOR COSO, AND FOR A GENERAL DISCHARGE.
SPN CODE HKQ EFFECTIVE 860911 - 930627. A general discharge for COSO is written “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL )/ Misconduct - commission of a serious offense ”.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues as stated on the application:

 “1. I, (Applicant) (social security number deleted), enlisted in active duty services in the United States Navy on June 14, 1990. I was discharged under other than honorable conditions on May 23 1993. This undesirable discharge was improper due to the fact that I was falsely accused in taking part of a crime I had no involvement in.

The original charges against me were drop by the State of South Carolina. Prior to my incarceration, I was standing duty on board the USS Richmond K. Turner. There I, was released by the officer of the deck whom also stood duty in my section on January 2, 1993 to the Naval Investigative Service and the North Charleston Police.
The United States Navy regarded me as a criminal when this case went public. Which at the time I felt that they just wanted to wash there hands of me. I received no representation from the United States Navy. Therefore I had to obtain my own counsel. E_ K. C_ of (address deleted). The only time I received visits were from my friends and family. The government came only to serve me discharge papers, which I decline to sign and accept due to my innocence.

On May 28, 1994 the charges against me were dismissed enter by First Circuit Solicitor, W_ M_ B_. Others involved in my dismissal Judicial Circuit Judge, C_ W_ W_, Jr. and my attorney, E_ K_ C_. This shows I had no involvement in any criminal activity for which I was blamed. I am also a victim in this particular incident. Therefore I feel the U.S. Navy should over turn my discharge of other than honorable to honorable. By having this unjust discharge over my head has made it hard for me to find work. This has been stressing me for many years because I have not been able to provide for my family as I would like.

Please take in consideration that I was not involved in any crime and all charges against me were dismissed to show as proof. Over turning my discharge is only fare.

Sincerely,”

Issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (AMERICAN LEGION):

 2. “This former member also 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:
Letter from attorney, dated April 4, 2003
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900202 - 900614  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900615               Date of Discharge: 930524

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 11 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 43

 Highest Rate: SH3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.30 (2)    Behavior: 3.40 (2)                OTA: 3.50

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, AFEM, SASM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 141

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

930103:  Applicant released from pre-trial confinement at the Naval Consolidated Brig to the custody of the Dorchester County Sheriff's Department and arrested for accessory after the fact to rape, kidnapping, and murder. Applicant's case has not been adjudicated as yet, however, due to denial of request for reduction in bail on April 19, 1993, indications suggest lengthy incarceration.
930422:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
930422:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights. Applicant refused to sign.
930430:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: SH3 (Applicant) is being processed by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses. By his own admission during interrogation by civilian authorities, and substantiated by the statements of others, SH3 (Applicant) failed to report the abduction, rape, and murder of M_ A_ M_ on 29 December 92. SH3 (Applicant) offered succor to Miss M_'s murderers and is being charged by the State of South Carolina for aiding and abetting the crimes of kidnapping, rape, and murder. I most strongly recommend that SH3 (Applicant) be separated as soon as possible under Other Than Honorable conditions.

930518:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Applicant discharged in absentia.

981221:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND98-00420 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 19930524 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. In the Applicant’s case, under Naval Regulations a civilian conviction was not required as a basis for his administrative separation under other than honorable conditions due to the commission of a serious offense. Those regulations permit administrative separation upon a finding that the offense occurred. After a review of the evidence, the Applicant’s command determined that he had committed serious offenses that warranted administrative separation. The Applicant was notified that he was being considered for administrative separation processing and advised of his various rights, including the right to counsel and the right to appear before an administrative separation board. Following the Applicant’s refusal to acknowledge or elect these rights, the Applicant’s command recommended to the Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) that he be administratively discharged from the naval service under other than honorable conditions. BUPERS concurred in this recommendation and directed the Applicant’s administrative separation. The fact that the charges against the Applicant were nol prossed after his discharge from the U.S. Navy neither established his guilt or innocence nor invalidated his administrative discharge. The Applicant did not provide sufficient testimony and documentation to refute the presumption of regularity in this case. Relief is therefore denied.

Issue 2. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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, to enhance employment opportunities, or for good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, 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. 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, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that should have been provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offense for which he was discharged. Relief not warranted.




Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-01096

    Original file (ND02-01096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 950221 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The official record notes he was charged with murder by civilian authorities, a serious offense for which a punitive discharge and a life sentence is authorized. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, documentation of community...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01134

    Original file (ND04-01134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SHSN, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant at first denied an arrest for DUI, then subsequently admitted to the arrest [extracted from letter to the record of LT V. A. B_, legal officer].960228: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00411

    Original file (ND00-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MM1 (applicant) went to CO's NJP on board USS MCKEE (AS-41) 96NOV27, for Article 107, false official statement to XO, USS MCKEE, regarding his alleged affair with SK3 H_ and the adultery charge. In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board found that the applicant’s Commanding Officer has the authority to recommend administrative separation for any individual in his command who had committed misconduct. This is a non-decisional issue for the Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01068

    Original file (ND02-01068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Respectfully; M_ J. D_ (Applicant) Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 BCNR's ltr, dtd Jun 28, 2002, to the Applicant advising him to petition the NDRB Applicant's petition (DD Form 149) to BCNR, dtd May 24, 2002 Memo For Record, dtd Nov 14, 2001, from TPU to Performance Division, PSD Superior Court of State of Delaware count documents (12 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00078

    Original file (ND01-00078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00078 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001023, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I never signed or received said document, and at all times relevant I would have requested counsel. Relief will not be granted concerning this issue.In point V, the petitioner (applicant) states that “he was discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, even thought he retained his rank as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00918

    Original file (ND02-00918.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00918 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020612, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 921124: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00286

    Original file (ND02-00286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 at the time of issue. Commanding Officer's determination is to process member for separation as he shows no potential for further naval service.940517: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01274

    Original file (ND97-01274.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While I personally feel that SHSA J_’s offenses warrant an other than honorable characterization of service, I recognize the limitations placed on me by [MILPERSMAN Chapter 36] and have separated SHSA J_ with a characterization of service as general under honorable conditions as recommended by the board.”961016: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Following disciplinary action, if...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01171

    Original file (ND02-01171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge from the Navy came from a civilian conviction; the US Navy should not give me a dishonorable based on civilian law. 960716: Naval Investigative Service report in service record.960729: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged, in absentia, on 960815 under other than honorable conditions for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00948

    Original file (ND02-00948.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00948 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020618, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I requested legal representative or counsel and was refused legal representative or counsel before, or after mass at any time while attached to the ship. 890622: COMNAVMILPERSCOM WASHINGTON DC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due...