Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00171
Original file (ND04-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-HM2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00171

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031107. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The Applicant requests a documentary record 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: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:
“1. Plead innocent to Allegations made by my wife
2. No conviction charges drooped

 3. Requested Navy Representation for civilian criminal procedure. I did not get help from Navy.
4. After 105 days of being incarcerated I agreed to a discharge so my children could get separation assistance. During that time I was listed AWOL and did not receive pay or benefits.
5. I had a good service record before the allegations & should speak highly as my personal integrity.”
Applicant marked the box "I HAVE LISTED ADDITIONAL ISSUES AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS APPLICATION." None were found.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870826 - 880615  COG
         Active: USN                        880616 - 910915  HON
                   USN                       910916 - 970914  HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970915               Date of Discharge: 001222

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 03 03 08
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 28                          Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 43
Highest Rate: HM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: 4.00 (4)    Behavior: 3.25 (4)                OTA: 3.71
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: KLM, SASM (2), NDSM, AFSM, SSDR, HSM, GCM (3), NUC (2), BER (2), FMFR, JMUC, N&MCAM
Days of Unauthorized Absence: 105

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970915:  Applicant reenlisted for 6 years.
000804:  Applicant arrested by St Mary’s Police Department, Camden County, GA on charges of incest, rape and two counts of aggravated child molestation. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 001215. Start and end dates of incarceration were not found in the service record.]
000919:  Applicant informed by Commanding Officer of Family Advocacy Program Case Review Committee’s determination of substantiation of child sexual abuse. According to the Matrix the level of abuse was determined to be at the 5 th degree.
001206:  Applicant indicted on aggravated child molestation (2 counts) and child molestation (3 counts). [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 001215.]
001212:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
001212:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
001215:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense - [child molestation].
001219:  BUPERS 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 20001222 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to the 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).
Issues 1, 2 and 5. Sailors may be separated based on the commission of a serious military
or civilian offense, when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and
the offense would warrant a punitive discharge for the same or a closely related offense.
The commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by non-judicial or
judicial proceedings. However, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of
evidence. The Applicant’s alleged offense was substantiated by the Family Advocacy
Program Case Review Committee. 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by his civilian indictment for child molestation. 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 or under honorable (general) characterization of service. Relief denied.

 Issues 3 and 4. The Board’s regulations limit its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. 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.
The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country for the enlistment under review. The discharge was proper and equitable. 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 30, effective
30 Aug 00 until 24 Jan 01, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605), 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 | ND04-01036

    Original file (ND04-01036.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, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01010

    Original file (ND00-01010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When I was later incarcerated by civilian authorities TRITRAFAC took administrative action for my being "Absent Without Leave", a situation that existed only because TRITRAFAC had cancelled my retirement. Applicant released without bond.960403: Authorization for applicant's transfer to the Fleet Reserve, under ther Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) Program has been cancelled by Chief of Naval Personnel (PERS-27).960525: Applicant to unauthorized absence 0730, 25May96.960528: Civil...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00692

    Original file (ND04-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The suspect agreed to speak to me about the allegations, the suspect stated that he was at the poolhall with the victim and followed her outside. 031031: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00896

    Original file (ND03-00896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. (Equity Issue) This former member opines that personal and family problems sufficiently mitigated his misconduct of record to warrant recharacterization of his service period to fully honorable.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00409

    Original file (ND00-00409.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 971113 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to civil conviction (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).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00815

    Original file (ND02-00815.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged for misconduct. 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).Issues 1: The Board’s charter limits its review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. The Applicant’s service is equitably characterized as being performed under other than honorable conditions due to his own misconduct, which resulted in award of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00380

    Original file (ND02-00380.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to the application, the Civilian Counsel informed the Board that he does not represent the Applicant in regards to his Application for Review of Discharge. Patient reported having 45 days of confinement for going UA and stated he is going to be discharged. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00411

    Original file (ND04-00411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION (Attached is the completion of Impact class Document 2. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00226

    Original file (ND00-00226.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 990127 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). • the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation; • the offense would warrant a punitive discharge per MCM, Appendix 12 for the same or closely related offense. Pers-8 will direct processing for separation if the case is substantiated for child sexual abuse.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00433

    Original file (ND03-00433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Please review my record and see the great “Sailor” I was before I was unfairly treated by U. S. Naval Officers and enlisted as well. As this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.