Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00691
Original file (ND03-00691.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ETC(SW), USN
Docket No. ND03-00691

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030313. 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 20040401. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“1) My discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident in 11 years and 6 months of service with no other adverse action. -I was accused of misconduct. The misconduct was never proven or even considered before a fact finding body.-I was never given a fair chance to answer questions or state my case.

2) Further, my outstanding service prior to this isolated incident seemed to never be considered prior to discharge. The command issuing the discharge never consulted any reasonably objective legal body before issuing discharge. I only accepted this discharge after my command mast chief shared with several persons at my command that he was going to get me out one way or another.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Applicant, dated February 28, 2003
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Applicant’s letter, dated August 14, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890830 - 900713  ELS
                  USNR (DEP)      900718 – 901119  COG
         Active: USN                        901120 - 930520  HON
                  USN              930521 - 990413  HON
                  USN                       990414 - 020112  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 020113               Date of Discharge: 020531

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 04 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 30                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 82

 Highest Rate: ETC(SW)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages : Enlisted performance reports were available to the Board for review.

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM (2), SASM, SSDR, CGSOSR, KLM (K), BEA (2), GCM (3), AFEM, MUC (2), N&MCAM (2), ESWS

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

020318:  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 the preliminary investigative report of 020228.
020318:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
020515:  Applicant signed a conditional waiver requesting a discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) in lieu of electing an administrative discharge board.

020515:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by violation of the UCMJ, Article 92: failure to obey a lawful order on 020213, to wit: Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit Command Policy Number 5 dated 000823 and Article 93: Cruelty and maltreatment towards a subordinate on 020213.
020515:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted 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.
020515:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a characterization of general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): [On 13 February 2002, ETC(SW) M_ (Applicant) was assigned as a Preliminary Inquiry Officer (PIO) concerning allegations of underage drinking against two students (ET3 J_ and ET3 W_) assigned to Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit (NPTU), Ballston Spa. While assigned as PIO, ETC(SW) M_ (Applicant) informed ET3 J_ that he would have to remove his clothing in order to conduct a search of his persons for any physical indications of drug abuse or use, as well as, any possible markings or tattoos.
 (1) ET3 J_ consented to this illegal search and was directed by ETC(SW) M_ to remove his shirt, pants, and underwear, which was in direct violation of Naval Nuclear Power Train Unit Command Policy Number 5.
(2) On 07 March 2002 ETC(SW) M_ (Applicant) chose to invoke his right to refuse nonjudicial punishment, and was subsequently notified of his administrative separation process for discharge due to his inappropriate behavior and misconduct.
(3) I recommend ETC(SW) M_ (Applicant) be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions) based on ETC(SW) M_’s (Applicant’s) misconduct and contingency for separation in lieu of an administrative board.]
020517:  COMNAVREG NE Groton, CT directed the Applicant's discharge with a characterization of general (under 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 20020532 with a characterization of general (under 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 and 2: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “11 years and 6 months.” To maintain proper order and discipline the military does not view isolated offenses as minor infractions even though they are a first time incident on an otherwise clear record. The Applicant’s service record is marred by failure to obey a lawful order, cruelty and maltreatment of a subordinate. T he Applicant had very good evaluations throughout his tenure in the Navy, but his performance prior to the misconduct does not mitigate his offenses. Additionally, the Applicant waived his right to contest the characterization of service at an administrative board in order to receive a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Relief is therefore denied.

The NDRB noted an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18 did not reflect the Applicant’s previous eleven 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. Evidence 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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01035

    Original file (ND04-01035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “RE-1.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area . Request RE code to RE to reenlist as wrongfully discharged with error Code was told could re enlist, also reserves” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00534

    Original file (ND02-00534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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. No indication of appeal in the record.000331: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01303

    Original file (ND03-01303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. In the acknowledgement letter, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01407

    Original file (ND03-01407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “12 years.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501044

    Original file (ND0501044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD NOT LONGER SEE HER DURING CAPTAIN’S MAST AND A SUSPENDED BUST FOR 6 MONTHS AND FINED $1,000 FOR 2 MONTHS. Furthermore, both B_ E_ and her father verified the ongoing relationship in their statements and J_ A_ O_ provided 2 additional statements documenting the ongoing relationship between the Applicant and the lady whom he was ordered to stop seeing.

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00087

    Original file (ND03-00087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a record review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Though Navy regulations only permit conditional waivers for General discharges not Honorable discharges, BM2 M_'s (Applicant) designated military lawyer did not know this and provided erroneous advice to BM2 M_ (Applicant). Navy regulations required that for misconduct to be a serious offense it must be an offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01499

    Original file (ND03-01499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I request that all recommendations be overturned & new determinations of fact finding be made and Board Action change my discharge to an Honorable.”Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS): Based upon the details of the Applicant’s offenses and in consideration of the Applicant’s rank, record of service, and all documentation available...

  • 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...