Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00862
Original file (ND03-00862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-DT3, USNR
Docket No. ND03-00862

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030421. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel. The Applicant listed Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, all hearing are held in the Washington D.C. area. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

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 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I am attending the University South Carolina Beaufort, my major will be business management. I am a night foreman at Beaufort Gazette pressroom. I voluntary three time a week at Naval Dental Center.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS:

2. “The Applicant has a strong letter of support for upgraded from Capt L. P_ USN. In addition during post service, he achieved the Dean’s List honors for the fall of 2002 semester as the University of South Carolina, furthermore he has study employment. We as the board to consider the above in your decision. We concur that the Applicant discharge be upgraded. We refer this case to the Board for their careful and compassionate consideration and request the applicant’s discharge be reviewed for upgrading his discharge to Honorable.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter of Support from Capt L. P_, dated October 7, 2002
Copies of DD Form 214 (2)
Letter of Congratulation for Dean’s List honors dated February 7, 2002
Employment Reference Letter dated February 24, 2003.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 901220               Date of Discharge: 950813

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 05 08
         Inactive: 00 02 18

 Age at Entry: 26                          Years Contracted: 8 (48 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: DT3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (5)    Behavior: 3.48 (5)                OTA: 3.96

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: JUM, AFEM, NAM, SAM, NDSM, LOA(4)

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910311:  Ordered to active duty for 24 months under the Seaman Apprenticeship program.

910315:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Non-swim qualified), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
911114:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Disorderly conduct.
         Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

940603:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Actions and/or comments which may be construed as inappropriate behavior by member of the opposite sex), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
950517:  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, (a) Your indecent assault on DT3 A_ W. W_, USN, in about September-October 1993, (b) Your sexual harassment of DA A_ R. P_, USN between January and April in violation of SECNAVINST 5300.26B, (c) Your sexual harassment of DN J_ P. F_, USN, in March and April 1994 in violation of SECNAVINST 5300.26B, (d) Your kidnapping, assault and indecent assault on DN J_ V. N_, USN, on 9 November 1994, and your assault on DN J_ V. N_, USN, on 10 November 1994.
950517:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
950601:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge.

950803:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

950808:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a 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 19950818 with a 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: Normally, to permit relief, an error or injustice must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or injustice occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant ’ s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, demonstrating he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to an honorable discharge would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

 Issue 2: 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. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. Relief denied.

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 documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge 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 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600332

    Original file (ND0600332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:“-I would like for my RE-4 code and/or my narrative reason to be upgraded for eligibility to return to a branch of service.” Appeal denied 031105.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - pattern of misconduct and misconduct - commission of serious offense. The names, and votes of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00733

    Original file (ND01-00733.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00733 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010507, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00284

    Original file (ND03-00284.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-HTFR, USN Docket No. ND03-00284 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021204, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged in absentia on 19920601 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00145

    Original file (ND04-00145.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR 890223 - 940906 COG Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00183

    Original file (ND03-00183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My life was robbed because T_ F_ and J_ W_ didn’t’ like Hispanics.” 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) 860130 - 860223 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 860224 Date of Discharge: 890301 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 00...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500005

    Original file (ND0500005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer’s comments: “After thorough review of the entire case of the SNM, I have determined that the facts and circumstances in this case warrant discharge with a characterization of service of other than honorable conditions.”BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.970113: NDRB Docket Number ND96-01293, document review conducted. In the Applicant’s case the record clearly documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00903

    Original file (ND03-00903.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) Twenty-two pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: ARNG (DEP) 921222 – 930729 ELS USNR (DEP) 931026 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00831

    Original file (ND03-00831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00831 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030407. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Age at Entry: 23 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 43 Highest Rate: SN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.67 (3) Behavior: 2.33 (3) OTA: 2.56 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: BER (3), SSDR, AFEM, NDSM...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600367

    Original file (ND0600367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it requested that the Board consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case, to include the impetuosity of his youth, and grant a favorable decision.If a favorable decision can not be granted at this time, it is requested that the Applicant be scheduled for a future Hearing.DAV” Documentation In addition to the service record, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00802

    Original file (ND99-00802.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00802 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990524, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Age at Entry: 18 Years Contracted: 4 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 35 Highest Rate: HN Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 2.73 (3) Behavior: 2.60 (3) OTA: 3.33 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative...