Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00482
Original file (ND03-00482.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ETSN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00482

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030127. 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 20031229. 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, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Respectfully request an upgrade due to type of discharge was based on a civilian offense. Having completed the requirements and conditions of the civilian courts, my charges were dismissed and all civil rights were restored (see attachment). Since my discharge & type of discharge was based upon the civilian offense (line item 28, DD 214), & that civilian offense has been dismissed I respectfully request a review & upgrade of my discharge.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Order of dismissal and discharge from District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, dated April 14, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     861222 - 870428  COG
         Active: USN                        870429 - 910425  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910426               Date of Discharge: 940711

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 02 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 5

 Education Level: 11 GED           AFQT: 91

 Highest Rate: ET1

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (6)    Behavior: 3.67 (6)                OTA: 3.57

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, NUC, GCM

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910426:  Applicant reenlisted for 5 years.

940107:  Applicant arrested Idaho Falls Police for felony injury to a child on 931221.
940413:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Complaints of late payments for combined maintenance and child support as stipulated in a court order in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, County of Bonneville. Further delinquency in payment of combined maintenance and child support while stationed at NPTU Idaho Falls, ID will result in disciplinary action.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
         
940413   Applicant plead guilty to felony injury of a child.
940607:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and civilian conviction.
940607:  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.

40616:   Civil Conviction: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho for violation of felony injury to a child.
 Sentence: Five months in jail, fine $5,000.00, community service for 300 hours, probation for 10 years and no visitation rights with his children
940617:  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 (verbatim): [Due to the nature and severity of this offense, I feel petty officer M_ (Applicant) cannot become a viable member of the Navy. I recommend discharge with other than honorable conditions in the most expeditious manner possible. Petty officer M_ is not recommended for any further military service.]

940624:  BUPERS 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 19940711 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, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. 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. The Applicant plead guilty to committing a felony injury to his five month old daughter resulting in cerebral hemorrhaging and partial paralysis. The commission of this offense clearly demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. The Court’s later administrative dismissal of the charge does not alter the fact that the offense was committed. Applicant’s separation for commission of a serious offense was, therefore, proper and will not be overturned. An upgrade to honorable would be extremely inappropriate. Relief denied.

 The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18 did not reflect the Applicant’s previous four years of honorable service. The Board notified Commander, Naval Personnel Command, Millington, TN and recommended the DD Form 214 be corrected or reissued.

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. 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted.

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. 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. 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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00981

    Original file (ND00-00981.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :911025: Applicant completed Level II.930715: Applicant arrested for driving while under the influence in Oak Harbor, WA. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): AT3 (applicant) is unfit for further military service primarily due to his continued abuse of alcohol following successful completion of Level II rehabilitation treatment. In considering AT3 (applicant's) absence of serious disciplinary problems prior to his drunk driving...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00468

    Original file (ND01-00468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00468 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010227, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to completed service. Willing to waive the administrative board if given an honorable discharge with the understanding that if request is denied, admin separation processing will continue and will have the right to elect an admin board or hearing.000316: Commanding officer...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00965

    Original file (ND01-00965.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00965 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010723, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. At this time I needed a treatment program for alcohol abuse. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00684

    Original file (ND01-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth on the application by the appellant of an upgrade of his current General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge to that of Honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.910426: [USS ORION (AS-18)] notified applicant of intended recommendation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00730

    Original file (ND00-00730.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentenced: Incarcerated for 303 days at Elmwood Correctional Facility in Milpitas, fined of $200, and placed on 5 years probation.930304: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by your felony conviction at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, San Jose, California, on 930205 to the charge of violating California Penal Code Section 237A(1), causing pain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00964

    Original file (ND00-00964.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00964 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000823, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 931202: Applicant arrested by civilian authorities and charged with a felony of willfully using force and violence against a police officer.931206: Civil conviction Municipal Court for the Alameda Judicial District At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00851

    Original file (ND01-00851.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 890722 - 890807 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890808 Date of Discharge: 930709 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 11 08 Inactive: None 930601: Applicant from unauthorized absence (45...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500029

    Original file (ND0500029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Applicant’s service was marred by orders violations, provoking speech and gestures, failure to pay just debts, insubordinate conduct, unauthorized absence and a civilian conviction for felonious larceny and speeding.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01192

    Original file (ND03-01192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Board received the Applicant’s supporting documents on 20040920 and reconvened the Board on 20040921. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00433

    Original file (ND03-00433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Please review my record and see the great “Sailor” I was before I was unfairly treated by U. S. Naval Officers and enlisted as well. As this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.