Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00071
Original file (ND04-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00071

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031014. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant originally requested a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. The Applicant failed to respond by the deadline date to a letter requiring the Applicant to notify the Naval Discharge Review Board of intention to be present for the requested personal appearance hearing. Therefore, a documentary review was conducted, and the Applicant is not eligible for further review by this Board.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050713. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the characterization of discharge was appropriate. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “I would like apologizing for my behavior wild I was active duty I am very immature and very stupid. I missed the navy and now I am much older and matured I realized my mistakes please give me and chance. I really need my discharge upgraded. I would like to re join the navy I’m really to serve my country the way I should have before please give me another chance.”
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 (DEP)     870415 - 870805  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 870806               Date of Discharge: 911211

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 00 02 (Does not include lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 24

 Highest Rate: FA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (1)             Behavior: 2.60 (1)                OTA: 3.20

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NER, CGR, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 87

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

BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

871209:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Failure to disclose dependents), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

880924:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect; violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Communicating a threat.
         Award: Forfeiture of $335.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

881024:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (The Applicant has committed a violation of the UCMJ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

890425:  UA from USS PLATTE (AO-186) at Portsmouth, VA, 0725, 890425.

890426:  Surrendered on board USS PLATTE (AO-186) 0725, 890426 (1 day) at Norfolk, VA.

890511:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
         Award: Forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 14 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

890722:  UA from USS PLATTE at Portsmouth, VA, 0725, 890722.

890815:  Surrendered on board USS PLATTE (AO-186) 1430, 890815 at Norfolk, VA (24 days).

890822:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence; violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Disrespect.
         Award: Forfeiture of $349.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), 30 days correctional custody. No indication of appeal in the record.
900215:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of cocaine.
         Award: Forfeiture of $360.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
900321:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 900316 having been an unauthorized absentee since 1800, 900215 from USS PLATTE (AO-186).

900419:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant apprehended by civil authorities on 900418 (1820) at Gary, IN. Returned to military control 900418 (1820). Retained custody pending transfer to NACU NORVA. (62 days)

900604:  Special Court Martial [trial dates 900601 – 900604]
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134.
Specification: Breaking restriction on 900215.
Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86.
Specification: Unauthorized absence 900215 – 900418 [62 days/A].
         Findings: to Charge I and the sole specification thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and the sole specification thereunder, guilty, excepting the words “he was apprehended”. Of the excepted words, not guilty, of the specification as excepted, guilty, to Charge II, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 75 days, forfeiture of $150.00 pay per month for 3 months, Bad Conduct Discharge.
         CA 901230: Sentence approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a bad conduct discharge, will be executed, but the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging any confinement in excess of 45 days is suspended for 12 months from 900604, at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated the suspended part of the sentence will be remitted without further action.
        
900604:  Joined Naval Brig, Naval Station, Norfolk, for confinement.

900607:  Applicant waived clemency review [Extracted from NC&PB database].
910405:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
910802:  Appellate review completed.

 910830:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.            

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19911211 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. That sentence was subsequently approved by both the convening and appellate review authorities (A and (B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).

Issue 1. In response to the Applicant’s issue, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Relief denied.

Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes.

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL.

 B. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL 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. 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 “ http://Boards.law.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:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00579

    Original file (ND01-00579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00891

    Original file (ND99-00891.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (EQUITY ISSUE) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board's clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to General (Under Honorable Conditions) on the basis of his post-service conduct. 870122: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, 2 Specifications. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501512

    Original file (ND0501512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149 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: 19870924 Date of Discharge: 20010205 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 13 04 12 (Does not exclude lost time.) Sentence: Confinement for 65 days, and to be discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600429

    Original file (ND0600429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “ Respectfully request change of bad conduct discharge into an honorable discharge, also please change my separation code:jjd/901 and re-entry code of re4. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violations of the UCMJ, Articles 86 (Unauthorized...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00189

    Original file (ND03-00189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant declared a deserter on 880718 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0500, 880618 from USS CLAUDE V. RICKETTS (DDG-5).881021: Special Court Martial [trial date 881021] Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from unit 880618 until 880809, [52 days/S.]. At this time, the Applicant has not provided any verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to mitigate his misconduct while on active duty. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00901

    Original file (ND02-00901.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letter of Characterization from Pastor J_ D. P_, JR dated November 28, 2001 Letter of Characterization from J_ D. P_, Jr, 2 ND Lt Chaplain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00484

    Original file (ND02-00484.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. CA action 911030: Sentence approved and ordered executed.911116: Released from confinement and returned to full duty. Applicant declared a deserter on 920207 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0545, 920107 from USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71).920424: Report of Return of Deserter.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00159

    Original file (ND00-00159.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) Twenty-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: 820604 Date of Discharge: 860923 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 03 20 Inactive: None ),...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01233

    Original file (ND02-01233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I was receiving treatment in the Wilmington, Delaware VA from Dec 2000 to Aug 2002. 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 D.C. 20374-5023

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00991

    Original file (ND99-00991.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 870529 – 870825, [88 days/S.] PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 881229 with bad conduct due to convicted by special court martial (A). 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.