Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00910
Original file (ND03-00910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AOAA, USN
Docket No. ND03-00910

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed a private representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conduct 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: UNDER OTHER THAN 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. “20003Apr

In Jan of 2000, I was charged and convicted on two counts of Art 92 and two counts of 134. In June of 2000, I was convicted of the same charges as in Jan of 2000. According to the U.S. Consititution the second Captain’s Mast was unconsititutional. This was also the mast where I was given an OTH discharge.”

 Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s statement, dated February 17, 2003
Character reference, dated September 29, 2002
Character reference, dated September 29, 2002
Character reference, dated March 18, 2003
The “Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon on Double Jeopardy, dated September 9, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960425                        Date of Discharge: 001015

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 04 02 06
          Inactive: 00 02 15

 Age at Entry: 17        Parental Consent         Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: AO3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.67 (3)                      Behavior: 2.67 (3)                OTA: 3.03

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: GCM, SSDR (2), AFEM, NER, NUC

 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 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960710:  Applicant ordered to active duty for three (3) years.

 970813:  Applicant volunteer to remain of active duty for 24 months beyond normal expiration of active obligated service date.
000120:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (3 specs): Failure to obey regulation, violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs): Debt, dishonorably failing to pay.
         Award: Restriction for 30 days, red to AOAN. No indication of appeal in the record.
000621:  NJP. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from awards page.]
         Award: No indication of appeal in the record.
000816:  Commander, Navy Region Southwest directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

 Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000915 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B) and, after a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. It must be noted that most Sailors serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Sailors, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the applicant. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 30, dated 7 Nov 00, effective 30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, 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 | ND04-00437

    Original file (ND04-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01271

    Original file (ND03-01271.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:DD Form 149, dated February 16, 2001 Letter of Commendation for December 13-18 1996 Letter of appreciation, dated February 6, 1998 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR...

  • 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00865

    Original file (ND03-00865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00865 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions and the reason for the discharge be changed to hardship. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00436

    Original file (ND03-00436.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00436 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030122. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00174

    Original file (ND02-00174.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990419: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey lawful order on Mar99 to Apr99, to wit: allowing a civilian to reside in her assigned BEQ room Award: Letter of caution, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. The NDRB found the evidence presented by the Applicant to be lacking to warrant an upgrade to her characterization of service. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01098

    Original file (ND03-01098.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 III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19990517 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00437

    Original file (ND03-00437.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :980305: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01117

    Original file (ND02-01117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB found credible evidence of misconduct in the service records of the Applicant. Verifiable proof of 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00653

    Original file (ND01-00653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-RMSN, USN Docket No. 990708: Commanding Officer, USS DEFENDER (MCM-2) recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.990719: Commander, Mine Warfare Command authorized the applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The NDRB noted the...