Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01192
Original file (ND03-01192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MMFN, USN
Docket No. ND03-01192

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20030707. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant listed the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A personal appearance hearing review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040916. The Applicant was granted until 20040921 to submit additional supporting documents. The Board received the Applicant’s supporting documents on 20040920 and reconvened the Board on 20040921. 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 – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

 Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative ( VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS) at time of the Board superseded all previously submitted issues by the Applicant:

1. “Clemency for an upgraded discharge to Under Honorable. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of DD Form 214
Copy of City and County of Philadelphia Election Certificate
Copy of Trolley Staff Certificate
Letter of Congratulation from Congressman J_ F. F_
Copy of Letter of Appreciation from CO
Copy of Certificate of Completion (Machinist’s Mate Class “A” Course)
Copy of Criminal Record Check
Copy of Employment Verification
Copy of Brochure of Appreciation
Copy of District of Philadelphia Route Operation Report
Copy of Community College of Philadelphia Transcript
Copy of Deed

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     871029 - 880131  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880201               Date of Discharge: 900910

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 07 10
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 28

 Highest Rate: MMFN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.50 (2)    Behavior: 2.93 (3)                OTA : 3.27

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900430:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (V iolation of UCMJ, Article 91: (2 Specifications), Disrespect towards a Petty Officer and a Chief Petty Officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Communicating a Threat ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning [Extracted from CO’s message].
900430:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: (2 Specifications), Disrespect towards a Petty Officer and a Chief Petty Officer, violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault, violation of UCMJ Article 134: Communicating a Threat.
         Award: Forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days (suspended for 6 months), reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

900518:  Convicted by the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk for Forgery, Uttering, and Attempted Grand Larceny.
         Sentenced: (900706) 2 yrs suspended jail (Felony Trial Ordered 900518).
900701:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
900706:  Applicant advised of his rights including the right to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, and refused to sign or submit his statement of awareness. He requested no rights.
900717:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

900720:  CNMPC directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
950123:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND94-01031 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19900910 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. 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 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of articles 91, 128 and 134 of the UCMJ. In addition, the Applicant was convicted by the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk for forgery, uttering, and attempted grand larceny. 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. Relief denied.
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. The board does commend the Applicant’s work within his community and encourages him to continuing mentoring. The evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. Therefore, no relief will be granted.

 The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant. The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560A), Change 8, effective
21 Aug 89 until 14 Aug 91, 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501360

    Original file (ND0501360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 910923: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his enlisted service record, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01252

    Original file (ND04-01252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-UTCN, USN Docket No. ND04-01252 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040806. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00021

    Original file (ND99-00021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found this issue to be without merit. In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board found these issues to be without merit. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00362

    Original file (ND00-00362.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT – Commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. No indication of appeal in the record.910920: 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 violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Failure to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00974

    Original file (ND99-00974.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00974 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990713, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01471

    Original file (ND03-01471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of 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).The Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The Applicant’s misconduct is clearly documented.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500966

    Original file (ND0500966.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D. Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128: Assault a First Class Petty Officer on 921128. Naval Service with a discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable condition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501142

    Original file (ND0501142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board’s (NDRB) authority for review is limited to 15-years from the time of discharge. 900711: NJP for violations of the UCMJ, Article 86 (unauthorized absence, 2 specifications).Specification 1: Absent from place of duty from 0500, 900703 until 0606, 900703. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization on the issue of obtaining more favorable employment and this issue does not serve...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01077

    Original file (ND99-01077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like to ask the review to change discharge 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 issue 1, the Board found that the applicant had 3 NJPs within one year and seven months of service. Specifically, he was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01512

    Original file (ND03-01512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. 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