Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00975
Original file (ND03-00975.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MASN, USN
Docket No. ND03-00975

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030512. 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 20040408. 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. Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to begin by saying thank-you. I do appreciate the time that is taken to look over this. I know that a careful decision will be made based on the subject matter of this package.

I am making the request, as per DD Form 293, to review my record so that I may receive an Honorable discharge. I wish to serve, once again, in the US Navy. There are certain issues that I would like to be addressed. The first issue is that I feel as though I deserve a second chance in the Navy. The second issue is that I proudly served for almost 9 years and had only one isolated incident during my second enlistment (Evaluated by a Dr. _ at NAS Whidbey Island, Mental Health Services). I feel that if the judge, who ruled over my case, recommended me for retention, that I do deserve a second chance to prove how great this Sailor is.

I have enclosed all of my Evaluations, Letters from numerous Commanding Officers, and even my college transcripts, since I made Petty Officer, to show how stellar my performance was. I was no ordinary Sailor. To shed even more light, in August of 2001, I met with my Commanding Officer at NAS Whidbey Island and proposed ideas on enhancing the command and the sailor’s spirit. This was after my misconduct. I chose to do this on my own because I wanted to prove that I learned a great big lesson. I wanted to help prevent other Sailor’s before they made those terrible mistakes. My other purpose was to show that even though I made a mistake (which I took responsibility for) I was, and still am, a very productive and positive individual. I know that there have been many senior enlisted personnel who have gone down that path. They also have proven that they have learned a valuable lesson. I know that they are still here to help. I have enclosed three letters of recommendations. The first is from E_ R_, my Stepfather. The second is from MAC C_ R_, the LCPO of Navy Regional Security, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and my supervisor when the incident happened. And the third one is from MACS D_ T_, the Assistant Security Officer of Whidbey Island, under which I served my last year in the Navy (Instead of being put on legal hold, I transferred to my next duty station).

My goal is to become a Navy Chief and make a difference no matter where I am or what I do. I know I have so much more to offer the Navy. And I would like to do this by serving more time in the Navy. I want to prove that I can serve in an Honorable fashion. Yes, I am very sorry. But, I cannot change what’s in the past. I can only make the future better. May I have that second chance and receive an HONORABLE discharge?”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Recommendation Letter from E_ R_
Recommendation Letter from MAC C_ R_
Recommendation Letter from MACS D_ T_
Copies of Evaluation Report & Counseling Record (9)
Thank you Letter from Hill County Village Police Department
Letter of Appreciation dated June 20, 1996
Good Conduct Award dated August 24, 1996
Certificate of Appreciation from MWR
NATO Medal Award
Brava Zulu from Commanding Officer dated January 10, 1997
Letter of Appreciation dated April 16, 1997
JSOQ Nomination dated September 29, 1997
Letter of Appreciation dated November 3, 1997
Letter of Appreciation from RADM J. R. R_
Letter of Commendation 1997
Brava Zulu from Commanding Officer dated November 17, 1997
Certificate of Achievement dated January 26, 1998
Letter of Appreciation dated August 23, 1999
Letter of Appreciation dated October 14, 1999
Certificate of Commendation from the Air Force
Award Certificate dated August 31, 1999
Letter of Appreciation dated September 17, 1999
Memo’s of Seizures while on mission with US Customs Nov/Dec 99
JSOQ Nomination dated March 28, 2000
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal dated December 18, 2000
College Transcripts from Central Texas College dated December 18, 2000
Memorandum to Commanding Officer of NAS Whidbey Island dated August 1, 2001

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930819 - 930824  COG
         Active: USN                        930825 - 980831  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 980901               Date of Discharge: 020212

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 11
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 23                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 54

 Highest Rate: MA2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.66 (3)    Behavior: 4.00 (3)                OTA: 3 .66

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, Pistol Marksmanship, Rifle Marksmanship, GCA(2), NMCOSR(2), NM, NMCAM

 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 :

980901:  Reenlisted at NAVSUPPACT Security Detachment Souda Bay, Greece for 4 years.

010430:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (In accordance with OPNAVINST 5350.4C you were formally evaluated by the Alcohol Treatment Facility, Naval Hospital, Oak Harbor for alcohol dependence and/or use), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
        
011106:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: Assault PFC S_ T_, USMC, by striking him with means to produce grievous bodily harm, to wit; a glass.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification 1 thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 80 days (20 days suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-3, and reprimand.
         CA 011106:
        
011115:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
011115:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
011206:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

020122:  ASN (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved that Applicant be discharge under other than honorable condition by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense.

020208:  CNMPC 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 20020212 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’s service record is marred by special court-martial conviction. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

 The NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

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 her 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 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 | ND04-00344

    Original file (ND04-00344.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Itemized list of checks Bankruptcy paperworkChain of Command commentsCopy of counseling chit from MSCM B_ Letter from Board For Correction of Naval Records, dated November 13,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01039

    Original file (ND03-01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. I was completely honest at my Mast, and lost my “A” school, but had the other charges suspended for 6 months. I also feel that based on my 47 months of excellent service, my promotion to E-5 , my good conduct medal, my 2 western pacific deployments, and my Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist award, my discharge should be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501240

    Original file (ND0501240.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On December 8, 2002, the Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records denied relief to PNSN B_(Applicant) request dated March 25, 2002. In addition on June 6, 2004 PNSN B_(Applicant) submits to the Naval Council of Personnel Records, Naval Discharge Review Board an application for discharge review. In response to Violation of UCMJ Article 87 (Missing Ships Movement), PNSN B_(Applicant) had in receipt Temporary Additional Duty orders (TAB H) to report to Commanding Officer,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00738

    Original file (ND04-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00738 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040330. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00623

    Original file (ND02-00623.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Though the evidence available in the partial records appears minor, the NDRB must presume there were additional periods of misconduct to warrant the discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01399

    Original file (ND03-01399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My name is J_ L_ T_ (Applicant). 970911: Commanding Officer informed Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel (PERS-83) of concurrence with administrative discharge board’s findings and recommendation to discharge Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.970930: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01427

    Original file (ND03-01427.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. In the absence of a discharge package, the Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B), and after a thorough review of available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600451

    Original file (ND0600451.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00451 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060131. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I was discharged with an Administrative Separation and given a characterization of service “Under Other Than Honorable” Conditions on April 19, 2004.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01009

    Original file (ND00-01009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, each time I did someone told the Squadron Commander that I was being abusive to my wife. In response to the applicant’s issue 3, the applicant was given a general (under honorable conditions) discharge because the Navy took the applicant’s service record into account when they characterized his discharge. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00988

    Original file (ND03-00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00988 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030527. According to S_’s statement, my statement, and the memorandum that was given to the defense counsel at that time,should prove that S_ was at least 12yrs of age and that I had reason to believe that she and her friends were 16yrs of age or older. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...