Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00315
Original file (ND03-00315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MSSR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00315

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20021211. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests 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 20040821. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, 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 stated

 1. “Dear Sir’s,

I am submitting DD293 if you will afford me, to be changed to Honorable Discharge. I do not have my Military record or my DD214 enclosed, I lost those in a fire.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to give you a little personal background of myself. I joined the military to try and provide a service to my country and to be able to further my future with the college assistance. I had 2 children when I joined and wanted to try and provide a better future for my girls then what was afforded to me.

I came from a family that believed that no matter what you went through with your husband you stayed with them because unity of marriage under God. I did seek counseling and nothing seemed to help. When I received my orders to Philadelphia I was happy to see that the based did have housing and child care. But I was on a waiting list for 2 years before I could get housing. No vacancy for childcare was available. My husband and I had gotten back together to try and work our differences out for our children. Things were going well until he could not find a job as quickly as he wanted to.

When my husband became abusive again, I had separated from him once again. I did not want this to affect my performance with the Military, I was happy with my enlistment and honored that I excelled and was able to feel like I was a part of a Proud Family. So I had a restraining order put against my husband. Things was going well, until he lost some monies gambling and he wanted me to give him some money and I told him I did not have any. I was on post and I told him that I would call the police if he came to harass me. I was on post when the base police arrived, my husband had stolen my purse and while I tried to fight him off of me, he broke my nose. I had advised them of the restraining order they did nothing to him but escorted him off the base. I was on duty when he attacked me. My command and the base police did nothing to help me in any way to better this situation. I had even asked to have orders to transfer me to another base. They gave me explanations that they could not and no other words other then to say that I am responsible for my husband’s actions and we should try and work things out. Due to the fact that I am white and my husband black, there were many occasions that the command was biased. I even had a master chief tell me that is what I get for marrying a N. Not only did the Base police not abide by this restraining order they also allowed him to work (he is a civilian) on the base. The only thing he had to do was sign an agreement that he would not bother me. He would only be allowed to enter the base to work and that was it. I later found out that he had been dating one of the Black detectives sister. I kept asking my command for help. They strictly would say they did not want to get involved in family matters. I am not trying to blame this problem on anyone other then myself. I am trying to explain, that I had no family or friends that I could get support from while in Philadelphia. I had no support from my command or the base police. I went back to the courts of Philadelphia and was explained that this was a military matter since all occurrences was on the base. I started being self-destructive. I felt like since I did not matter to my command, my family, I did not matter at all.

My records will show that I have received letters of appreciation from my CO and from the CO of the based for jobs well done. Whenever there was work to be done I was the first to volunteer.

Since my discharge, I have worked for the DMV, Nissan factory and Hilton hotel. I worked for each employer 1 year but for better employment opportunities and better pay in order to better provide for my children. My last employer was the Department of Motor Vehicles, until my mother was diagnosed cancer. I had to quit my job and move back to Alabama to help take care of her. I helped take care of her for a year until she recovered. I am currently working for Verizon Wireless. I have for the past 5 years and I have been promoted every year that I have worked here. I have actually been requested to work on special projects because of my hard work, dependability and reliability.

Sir's, I am simply asking for assistance of monies that I have paid in the GI Bill, I am in need of assistance for college funds to further my education in Network Administrator field that will help my knowledge not only with wireless future but for the computer future technologies as well.

I recently became a Grandmother and I have to further my education to help myself be more marketable for the wireless and computer industries, by doing this I will continue to better myself to be able to continue providing a better future not only for my children, but also for the future of my grandchildren.

Sir’s, I thank you for your time in this matter and I would appreciate if you would afford me this opportunity.”

Thank you for your time,

V_ S_ ( Applicant )
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)     900420 - 900425  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900426               Date of Discharge: 961217

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 06 07 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 24                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: MS3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.95 (3)    Behavior: 4.00 (3)                OTA: 4.00

 Military Decorations: NDSM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

900418:  Applicant signed Navy’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse statement of understanding.

940429:  Special Court-Martial [trial dates 031119, 031123 – 031124]
 Charge I. Violation of UCMJ, Article 81: Conspiracy to wrongfully appropriate U.S. government treasury check a value of $800.00.
Charge II. Violation of UCMJ Article 112a, Wrongful use of cocaine on or about 93MAY15 to 93MAY18.
Charge III. Violation of UCMJ Article 121, Wrongful appropriation U.S. government treasury check of a value of $800.00.
Charge IV. Violation of UCMJ Article 134, Wrongfully receive military allowance of about $800.00.
Additional Charge. Violation of UCMJ Article 112a, Wrongful use of cocaine on or about 93OCT17 to 93OCT 20.
         Findings:        Of Charge I and the Specification thereunder: Not Guilty.
                           Of Charge II and the Specification thereunder: Guilty.
                           Of Charge III and the Specification thereunder: Not Guilty.
                           Of Charge IV and the Specification thereunder: Not Guilty.
                   Of the Additional Charge and the Specification thereunder: Guilty.
Sentence: To be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge.
Not Dated        Medical Evaluation: Screened and found not to be drug dependent.

940831:  Applicant placed on Mandatory Appellate Leave.

961218:  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 19961217 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).

Issue 1. The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits and educational pursuits the Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 14 Dec 98, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL

 B. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violations of the UCMJ, Articles 81, 112a, 121, and 134.

C. 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.

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 | ND02-00725

    Original file (ND02-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's Personal Letter to the Board dtd Feb 13, 2002 (3 pages) Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd Oct 9, 1989 Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd 18 Nov 89 Applicant's Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (7) Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00774

    Original file (ND02-00774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I feel as though I deserve the G.I Bill because: (1) monies were deducted out of my first years enlistment for that purpose (2) I would have completed my initial 4 year enlistment with an Honorable Discharge had it not been for the 2 year extension that I signed in boot camp. My mother made her condition known to me a long time before I went U.A. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00901

    Original file (ND02-00901.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. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter of Characterization from Pastor J_ D. P_, JR dated November 28, 2001 Letter of Characterization from J_ D. P_, Jr, 2 ND Lt Chaplain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01026

    Original file (MD04-01026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-01026 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. I was discharged December 13, 2001 from the Marine Corps with an Other Than honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00550

    Original file (ND03-00550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00550 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030214. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500949

    Original file (ND0500949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of all available 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. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined these factors insufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00360

    Original file (ND00-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Intentions unknown.850423: Applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1700, onboard Naval Station Philadelphia, PA. (25 days UA).850426: Applicant commenced unauthorized absence at 0730, 85APR26, while being processed by NAVSTA Phila, PA for transfer to USS PELELIU (LHA 5) under technical arrest orders. Sentence: Confinement for 31 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01074

    Original file (ND04-01074.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant presents evidence that he is a man of honorable character and high moral standing.Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00203

    Original file (ND02-00203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00203 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020107, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After such a high failure rate the Navy went back to the old curriculum, but my path to Naval success had already taken a turn for the worse. for a day or two and I started to get into trouble by being restricted to the ship.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01073

    Original file (ND03-01073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Over the past 12 years not a day has passed that I have not regretted my actions. Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112A, Specification: Wrongful distribution of 1.3 grams of marijuana. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE.