Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00244
Original file (ND04-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-YNSR, USN
Docket No. ND04-00244

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20031120. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. 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 20040728. 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/COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

I J_ H_ was given an other than honorable discharge due to my drug use, since then I’ve been admitted into a Christian recovery _ at 426 S McDuff Ave in Jax FL in which I spent one year there, I don’t make excuses about my discharge only that I regret the way in which I harmed people around me and served with me. After nine years of being discharged my life is drug free and on these basis of changing my life with God’s help I am a totally different person than I was back in 1994. Thank you for taking this time to hear me.

 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)     870330 - 870517  COG
         Active: USN                        870518 - 910110  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 910111               Date of Discharge: 950406

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 04 25
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 34

 Highest Rate: YN3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.85 (8)    Behavior: 2.80 (8)                OTA: 3.27

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: BATTLE”E”, SSDR (2), CGSOSR, NDSM, LOC

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

BAD CONDUCT/COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

910111:  Reenlisted onboard USS CUSHING (DD-985) for 4 years.

 910211:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: On or about 910122, absent himself from his unit.
         Award: Forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
911031:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (CO’s NJP of 911021 violation of the UCMJ, Article 128; CO’s NJP if 910211 violation of UCMJ, Article 86), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

930617:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongfully use of a controlled substance to wit: cocaine on or about 930622.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to NAS MIRAMAR for 60 days, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
940321:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a: Wrongful use of cocaine on or about 930622.
         Findings: to Charge I and specification thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 30 days, forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 940705: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.

940321:  Joined Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar, San Diego, California for confinement.

940509:  From confinement; to appellate leave.
950106:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.

950406:  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 19950406 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).

In response to the Applicant's issue, relevant and material details 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 tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based upon clemency only (C, Part IV). The Applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The service records that the Board reviewed showed no mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. 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 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. E vidence of continuing educational pursuits, a positive employment record, a drug free lifestyle, and certification of community service and non-involvement with civil authorities are examples of verifiable proof that can be submitted. At this time, the Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not mitigate his misconduct while on active duty.

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), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 02 Oct 96, 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 112a, (wrongful use of a controlled substance).

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 Rm309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01005

    Original file (ND00-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION of Transportation (FAA) Mechanic License issued 2 March 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 810504 - 851210 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 800907 - 810503 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 851211 Date of Discharge: 900309 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 02 29 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time.) 881013: Special Court Martial.Charge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500248

    Original file (ND0500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00168

    Original file (ND00-00168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is my hope that the review board will merit clemency based upon my post-service conduct. 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 first issue states: “It is my hope that when taking into consideration my overall performance marks the review board will evaluate my discharge as inequitable.” The applicant was discharged with a Bad Conduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00725

    Original file (ND02-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's Personal Letter to the Board dtd Feb 13, 2002 (3 pages) Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd Oct 9, 1989 Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd 18 Nov 89 Applicant's Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (7) Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00476

    Original file (ND99-00476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My cocaine usage happened because of my addiction to alcohol. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910205 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 Board found the applicant’s issues without basis with regard to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00696

    Original file (ND03-00696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00696 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030313. Sentence: Confinement for 65 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge. 950814: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500411

    Original file (ND0500411.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 Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C). Relief denied.The Applicant contends his discharge was improper because he never received treatment for his drug dependency. Nevertheless, even if the Applicant was improperly denied the VA treatment, the NDRB is convinced that such an error would have been procedural in nature and not prejudicial to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01030

    Original file (ND00-01030.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. 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 PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00724

    Original file (ND01-00724.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION (DAV's Issue)After a review of the Former Service Member (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contentions as set forth on the application by the appellant of an upgrade of his current Bad Conduct Discharge to that of Honorable. As the representative this service requests consideration be given to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00769

    Original file (ND03-00769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00769 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030331. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.