Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00190
Original file (ND04-00190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-EO2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00190

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031117. 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 “REQ RE-1.” The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing review before a traveling panel. The Applicant did not list any 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, advised that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel, and that all hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040817. 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: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “Honorable board members I served honorable and justly and respectfully request the boards seriouse concideration on this matter. I feel I was wronged do to polical matters on the situation.”

 Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Letter from Executive Secretary W. D_ P_, BCNR
Copy of DD Form 149
Privacy Act Release from Congress of the United States House of Representatives
Letter from Applicant dated September 11, 2003
Letter from Applicant
Employment Reference Letter dated September 5, 2003
Character Reference Letter dated August 29, 2003
Employment Reference Letter dated August 27, 2003
Copy of Character Witness Interview Transcript (3 pages)
Copy of Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report



PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     840608 - 850602  COG
         Active: USN                        850603 - 900215  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900216               Date of Discharge: 920515

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 03 00
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 2 (3 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 40

 Highest Rate: E02

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.56 (5)    Behavior: 3.56 (5)                OTA : 3.76

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, PMR, RMR, GCM, LOA (3), LOC

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900216:  Reenlisted at CBU 413 Pearl Harbor HI for 2 years.
910926:  Applicant arrested by San Diego Police Department for a second incident of spousal abuse (Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument). Applicant failed to fully discuss the incident with his treatment group and his Family Advocacy case manager [Extracted from CO’s Eyes Only letter dated November 27, 1991]. Court date of 911018. Released to Shore Patrol.
920218:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
920226:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
920410:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, recommended the separation be suspended for 1 year, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) if separated.

920420:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: I concur with the findings of the Board and recommend the findings be approved. Testimony of respondent’s wife indicates extenuating circumstances that led to these incidents and reveals some impropriety on her part. I understand that this suspension will begin to run when Per-83 notifies us of their decision in this matter. Any further misconduct during this period of this suspension will result in a vacation of the suspension and discharge from the U.S. Navy. I believe that this suspension will provide some incentive for Petty Officer M_ to get his personal life in order.

920501:  BUPERS advised that it is PERS 83 policy not to suspend a general discharge as it is considered insufficient motivation to maintain good performance. Applicant may be either discharged with a general discharge now or retained with a Pg. 13 counseling.

920513:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) 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 19920515 under honorable conditions (general) 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).

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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by two documented incidents of spousal abuse to include assault with a deadly weapon. No other narrative reason other than the commission of a serious offense 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.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. 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 occurred 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. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the discharge sufficient to warrant an upgrade. 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-01249

    Original file (ND99-01249.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 Letter from applicant outlining event leading to discharge (3pgs). 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’s issue states: “If more evidence is needed to verify that there was a need for me...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00519

    Original file (ND01-00519.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 Statement from Applicant (4pgs) Copies from Medical Record (65pgs) Copies from Service Record (60pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890913 Date of Discharge: 921217 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00282

    Original file (ND02-00282.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 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: 940329 Date of Discharge: 951026 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 04 00 (Doesn't exclude lost time.) Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01216

    Original file (ND99-01216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910510: 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 assaults consummated by battery on or about 26 October 1990, 19 November 1990, 27 January 1991 and 9 May 1991.910510: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00868

    Original file (ND00-00868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.960111: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112: Drunk on duty on 15Dec95. I strongly recommend he be separated from the naval service and characterizing his discharge as Other than Honorable.960716: Chief of Naval Personal recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) applicant be discharged General (under Honorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00319

    Original file (MD00-00319.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD00-00319 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000110, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. On this basis, he opines that upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable is warranted.” The NDRB found that the UOTHC discharge was equitable for the offenses the applicant was found guilty of (Violation of Article 128:Assault),and offense that could result in a punitive discharge at court martial. Relief...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00072

    Original file (ND00-00072.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 response to the applicant’s issue 1, the Board does not grant clemency. In the applicant’s issue 2, the Board found that the applicant had more than “isolated offenses of DWI” which in and of itself would be reason for discharge. No relief will be granted based on this issue.In the applicant’s issue 3, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00286

    Original file (ND02-00286.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 at the time of issue. Commanding Officer's determination is to process member for separation as he shows no potential for further naval service.940517: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01087

    Original file (ND99-01087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: Unauthorized absence from 9Jul90 to 14AUG90 (36 days). 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 determined this issue is without merit. The applicant claims he successfully completed the first 4 years of his enlistment and because he was not transferred to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00607

    Original file (ND03-00607.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 931212: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general under honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. While Applicant may feel that this alleged investigation was the reason for her discharge, upon her own request for discharge due to homosexual tendencies, the Applicant was properly dual processed for discharge by reason of...