Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00153
Original file (ND04-00153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-CTRSR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00153

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031028. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. 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 20040715. 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: 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. “During my entire enlistment (48 mos +) this is the only negative action.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Reference Letter dated November 16, 2002 (2 pages)
Reference Letter dated November 13, 2002
Job/Character Reference Letter dated January 30, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

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

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930427               Date of Discharge: 970723

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 07 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 77

 Highest Rate: CTRSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.60 (1)    Behavior: 3.80 (1)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, ASR, REM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

950609:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: (4 specs), failure to obey order or regulation.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction in rate (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

951027:  Reduction in rate suspended at CO’s NJP on 950609 vacated.

951213:  Special Court Martial [trial dates 951213]
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 123a, ( 4 Specifications ).
         Specification 1 : Did, on diverse occasions from around December 1994 to around January 1995, with intent to defraud and for the procurement of thing of value, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter to Bank One, a certain drafts upon Pen Air Federal Credit Union in words and figures as follows, to wit: Draft Number 364, date 29 December 1994, amount $1000.00. Draft Number 364, date 1 January 1995, Amount $1600.00. Draft Number 366, date 10 January 1995, Amount $2500.00; then knowing that he did not and would not have sufficient funds in and credit with said Pen Air Federal Credit Union for the payment of said drafts in full upon their presentment; Specification 2 : Did, on diverse occasions from around August 1995, with intent to defraud and for the procurement of thing of value, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter to Lackland Federal Credit Union, certain drafts upon Pen Air Federal Credit Union in words and figures as follows, to wit: Draft Number 476, date 4 August 1995, amount $383.47. Draft Number 506, date 17 August 1995, Amount $637.00. Draft Number 507, date 10 August 1995, Amount $637.00, then knowing that he did not and would not have sufficient funds in and credit with said Pen Air Federal Credit Union for the payment of said drafts in full upon their presentment; Specification 3 : Did, on or about 15 September 1995, with intent to deceive and for the purpose of paying a debt, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter to J___ E___, a certain draft upon Pen Air Federal Credit Union in words and figures as follows, to wit: Draft Number 530, date 15 September 1995, Amount $400.00, then knowing that he did not and would not have sufficient funds in and credit with said Pen Air Federal Credit Union for the payment of said drafts in full upon their presentment ; Specification 4 : Did, on or about 14 February 1995, with intent to deceive and for the purpose of paying a debt, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter to J___ M___, a certain draft upon Pen Air Federal Credit Union in words and figures as follows, to wit: Draft Number 345, date 14 September 1995, Amount $1050.00, then knowing that he did not and would not have sufficient funds in and credit with said Pen Air Federal Credit Union for the payment of said drafts in full upon their presentment.
         Findings: to Charge I and specifications 1 thru 4 thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 5 months, forfeiture of $550.00 pay per month for 5 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 960401: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
        
951213:  Joined Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California for confinement.

960417:  From confinement; to appellate leave.
970214:  NMCCCA: The findings of guilty and sentence as approved on review
         are affirmed.
970711:  COMA: Request for appeal denied.
970723:  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 19970723 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. By regulation, members discharged within the first 180 days of enlistment are given characterization of service "Uncharacterized" or entry-level separation unless there were unusual circumstances regarding performance or conduct, which would merit an "honorable" characterization. The Applicant was on active duty for in excess of two year, this making him ineligible for and entry-level separation. Relief denied.

The Applicant states that he had only this one negative action in “48+ months.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for four specifications of violations of Article 92 of the UCMJ as well as a Special Court Martial conviction of eight violations of Article 123a of the UCMJ for uttering over $8200 in drafts knowing that he did not and would not have sufficient funds for payment. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The NDRB found the evidence of record did not contain sufficient mitigating or extenuating factors to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.

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 additional documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 14 Dec 98, 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 123a, Check, insufficient funds, intent to deceive.

C. 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.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00158

    Original file (MD01-00158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD01-00158 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001121, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. 940830: Applicant's counsel submitted a letter to the commanding general requesting that the applicant's request for separation in lieu of trial by courts-martial be approved and that characterization of service be under Honorable conditions (General). You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500675

    Original file (ND0500675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.031124: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct commission of a serious offense.031124: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600165

    Original file (ND0600165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00165 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051103. After returning from treatment, the member states she did not gamble at all for nearly 9 months, and then in July 01, she began to gamble excessively again. Relief denied.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600214

    Original file (ND0600214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00005

    Original file (FD2006-00005.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The records indicated the applicant had a Special Court Martial, an Article 15, a Vacation, and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct. He was punished with a suspended reduction to airman, restricted to base for 30 days and a reprimand. CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concluded that the applicant's punitive discharge by Special Court-Martial is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case and there is insufficient basis, as an act of clemency, for change of discharge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00315

    Original file (FD2003-00315.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR / TO: I SAFIMRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 INDORSEMENT FROM: DATE: 09/30/2003 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used I I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600783

    Original file (ND0600783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 112a (use of a controlled substance) and 83 (fraudulent enlistment).C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 205(2), Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges . D....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501012

    Original file (ND0501012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149 Employment Reference ltr, dtd April 22, 2005 Reference ltr from Pastor B_ R_, undated Police Record Check dtd April 26, 2005, unsigned, unsealed Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19860331 – 19860803 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0156

    Original file (FD2002-0156.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Applicant was discharged for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. In his written statement, AB aga@i¥requests that he not be discharged from the Air Force or if he is discharged, then he asks that he receive an honorable discharge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00046

    Original file (FD2003-00046.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    m AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN TYPE GEN PERSONAL APPEARANCE X RECORD REVIEW COUNSEL : Oy 2 NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL YES NO xX OS MOVE OF THE BOARD” 7) MEMBERS SITTING HON] GEN goTHc ~~] OTHER ISSUES ~ A93.11, A94.53 INDEX NUMBER (UNS EXBOBITS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD A47.00 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF...