Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01158
Original file (ND03-01158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-MSSA, USN
Docket No. ND03-01158

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030620. 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 administrative or other term to indicate honorable service. Also, please change reenlistment code to RE1 or RE2. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293. 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.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040504. 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 and narrative reason 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. “While in the military, I was accused of slapping a shipmate on the back of the neck. I was also accused of attempting to intimidate the shipmate not to report this. After being informed of my write-up and possible Captain’s Mast, I continued my day to day schedule. After being relieved on my day off several weeks later, I was informed that my Captain’s Mast was supposed to be held on that day. My Division Officer (LTJG) and I discussed the Captain’s Mast and why it was chosen for that day. LTJG and I never had a good relationship; he felt insulted when I called him Lieutenant instead of Mr. and we never agreed on several issues.

I went into my berthing area to prepare for the Captain’s Mast by changing from civilian clothes to my dress white uniform. When I arrived at the Executive Officer’s quarters, I was instructed by the Master At Arms to wait outside of the door. When I was called into the room, I was informed that my Division Officer had informed the Executive Officer that I had threatened to harm him. I was instructed not to make a statement.

I was handcuffed and taken to the brig at Miramar Naval Air Station. While in the brig, I was appointed a lawyer (L.T. G_), who represented me during the trial. During the trial, I did not speak. The judge concluded that since there were no witnesses to corroborate either side, he would find me guilty.

The judge also stated that it appeared that this court-martial was an act of vengeance and the entire situation should never have been brought to a court-martial; instead it should have been handled at Captain’s Mast. The judge also stated that his finding of guilt was not to remove mc from the Navy, but to remove me from that command. The judge also stated that he felt if I went back under that command, I would be targeted for more negativity.

After going through this ordeal, I was given a hearing to determine my military fate. I am not aware of what was documented, but several members of the review board stated that I did not appear to be excited about the Military and that to allow me to remain in the Military would be more like punishment. Before my trial, I was offered several bargains if I plead guilty. Although my lawyer encouraged me to do so, I felt strongly against pleading guilty to something that I did not do and denied the opportunity to plea bargain.

The Board also stated that I would receive a general under honorable conditions discharge that would upgrade automatically. This discharge was December 1993; therefore, for the past ten (10) years, I have been under the impression that I was awarded an honorable discharge. I was recently informed that the discharge did not upgrade automatically and that I must apply to upgrade the discharge.

Also, I request that the reason for separation be changed from misconduct to administrative or other term to indicate honorable service. Also, please change reenlistment code to RE1 or RE2.”

Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s representative (American Legion):

“2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
Criminal record check
 Character/job reference, dated April 17, 2003
 Character reference from Senior Pastor, dated July 15, 2003
 Character reference from Administrative Assistant, Whitaker School, dated July 16, 2003
 Character reference from Clinical Assistant, Family & Youth, Inc, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     900224 - 900709  COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900710               Date of Discharge: 931229

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 03 05 20         Does not exclude lost time
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 39
Highest Rate: MSSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 3.70 (2)    Behavior: 3.50 (2)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR, SASM, LA

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 95
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 :

901220:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (1) Failed to obey a lawful order by sexually harassing a female service member on 1845, 900929, (2) Failed to obey a lawful order by sexual harassing another female service member on 1928, 901114, violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongfully use provoking words on 1928, 901114, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Unlawfully assaulted a female service member on 1845, 900829.
         Award: Forfeiture of $362 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
901220:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (You were found guilty at CO’s NJP of Viol, UCMJ Art 92: Sexual harassment, Art 117: Provoking words, Art 128: Assault), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930709:  Applicant to pretrial confinement.

 931001:  Special Court Martial:
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 89:
         Specification: Disrespectful in behavior towards a superior commissioned officer on 930709.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 117 (2 specs):
          Specification 1: Wrongfully use provoking words towards FN on 930602.
          Specification 2: Wrongfully use provoking words to FN on 930602.
          Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128:
         Specification: Commit assault on 930602.
          Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (2 specs):
          Specification 1: Wrongfully communicate a threat to FN on 930610.
         Specification 2: Wrongfully communicate a threat to LT on 930709.
          Findings: to Charge I, and III and specifications thereunder, guilty. Charge II and specifications thereunder, not guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 116 days, reduction to MSSA.
         CA 931104: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

931005:  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 Special Court-Martial conviction of 931001.
931005:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
931013:  Applicant from confinement and restored to full duty.
931015:  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 discharge general (under honorable conditions).

931207:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
931223:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge 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 19931229 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. A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by award of one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and one special court-martial. Each of the Applicant’s violations of the UCMJ are considered serious offenses. The statements provided by the Applicant do not refute the charges that led to disciplinary action. No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation. 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. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.
Concerning a change in reenlistment code, 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.

Issue 2. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of his discharge. 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01153

    Original file (ND04-01153.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 administrative or other term to indicate honorable service. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION CA 931104: Sentence approved and ordered executed.931005: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500594

    Original file (ND0500594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submitted my appeal on Jan. 06 2003, Document 2. My appeal was denied by the commander of Cruiser-Destroyer Group Twelve, Document 2, Page 4, in the USS Enterprise Commanding Officers endorsement (Document 2, Page 3) he stated that I did not have a reason for submitting my appeal late (sentence 1,2, paragraph 3). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00829

    Original file (ND03-00829.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was never caught with any drugs or used drugs while I was in the Navy form 5/90 / 5-93. After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in his request for a discharge upgrade of his current Other Than Honorable to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from May 7, 1991 to May...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00957

    Original file (ND99-00957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00957 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990709, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. At the conclusion of the second Commanding Officer's punishment proceedings I was told I would be discharged from the Navy with a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions. However, after the fact, when I reviewed my discharge papers, I discovered that I had in fact received an other than...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00587

    Original file (ND99-00587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00587 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990324, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. 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).In the applicant’s issues 1 and 2, the Board determined these issues are without merit. He clearly established a pattern of misconduct, in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00275

    Original file (ND04-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00275 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031201. 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 “ADMIN SEP.” 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:License PhotographApplicant’s DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00149

    Original file (ND99-00149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant did not object to separation.901220: Commanding officer recommended discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense and Alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 910102: CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of Misconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense. Violation of UCMJ, Article 92, dereliction of duty, is only punitive if it is classified as willful, for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00166

    Original file (ND01-00166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00166 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief is denied.The applicant’s second issue states: “The truth is I had requested 4 times with a request chit to be discharged from the service prior to my Captains Masts. My request is to have an honorable discharge, Thank you.” The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s service record and found no impropriety or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01059

    Original file (ND00-01059.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Thirty-one pages from applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 900720 Date of Discharge: 930330 Length of Service (years, months,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00006

    Original file (ND99-00006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00006 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 980928, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to re-enter military (army). 970606: Commander, Naval Base Seattle directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant...