Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00615
Original file (ND04-00615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


ex-RM3, USN
Docket No. ND04-00615

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040303. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041222. 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

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

 “1. Young age at which I joined the Navy (17) and age at discharge (19). See attached letter paragraph 2, line 7 (sentence 8)”
“2. Circumstances of/around discharge. Paragraph 2, line 1-6”
“3. Current maturity and life situation. Paragraph 3, line 1-4”
“4. Military service as a whole, only problems occurred secondary to discharge incident. Paragraph 3 line 5-8”
“5. Educational achievement and post Navy service. Paragraph 4, line 1-7 Note: I have exemplary post-service conduct and no trouble with the law”

“Note: please read attached letter in its entirely for a coherent presentation of my appeal for a change to a honorable discharge

 To Whom It May Concern:
I write this letter to this board in an attempt to have my discharge from the United States Navy upgraded from, under other than honorable conditions, to a honorable discharge. I would like to preface my reasoning for this action by giving a short history of the events occurring around the time of my discharge.
My ship, the USS Comte de Grasse, had been on a two-month deployment to France and Ireland and upon returning home my wife was showing evidence of impropriety and adultery. I was nineteen at the time and filed for a separation under Virginia law. It was my intent at the time to scare her, with the threat of divorce, back into a monogamous relationship. It would turn out to have the opposite effect. A short time later I returned home from twenty-four hour duty to find my apartment empty. She had left me. At the time, my world was collapsing and I blamed the military, to some extent, for costing me my marriage. I believe that at my young age I lacked the experience, maturity, or the vision for the future to deal with this situation appropriately. Foolishly, I ran away back home to Beaumont, Texas. I returned about two months later while my ship was deployed, adamant not to stay in the military. I was then processed out with my current discharge.
I ask today for a change in my discharge for several reasons. First, I am now twenty-five years old and have matured much since that day. Ironically, I attribute much of the maturation process to the lessons I learned, both from my seniors and my own mistakes, while in the Navy. The rest comes from being a father of two young children and a husband to my second (and my last) wife. Next, while in the military I had a good service record for almost two years. I graduated top of my Radioman A school class and achieved advance acceleration to third class petty officer in a little over a year. I had good evaluations and no conduct or disciplinary actions until my discharge incident.
My final reason for requesting a change in my discharge is due to my educational achievements and future public service. After leaving the military I started college and majored in Biology. After graduating summe cum laude, with a bachelors of science, I was accepted to medical school. During medical school I have consistently been on the Dean’s list and am at the top of my class. I have participated in volunteer activities including a mentor program for underprivileged children. I will soon graduate in May 2005 and will continue to serve my community and my country as a health care provider.
I want this board to understand that I am not proud of my actions years ago. I regret the choices I made, and in part, write this letter to try to apologize for them. However, it is my wish that considering the circumstances around my discharge, the young age I was when I joined the Navy and when I was discharged, and the things I have done since, would warrant a consideration for upgrading my discharge. I will soon be a physician and a role model to many, and don’t want that questioned based on the poor decisions of a teenager. As a doctor I will spend the rest of my life serving the people of this country, I hope that this board will grant my appeal so that I may do so honorably.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Copy of Bachelor of Science Degree from Lamar University
Copy of Acceptance Letter into Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine dated June 1, 2001
Copy of Transcript (5 pages)
Copy of National Dean’s List Congratulatory Letter

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950929 -951105   COG
          Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 951106               Date of Discharge: 971022

 Length of Service (years, months, days):
         Active: 01 09 06 (Does not include lost time)
          Inactive: None
Age at Entry: 17 (Parental consent)              Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 10                        AFQT: 86
Highest Rate: RM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance: NMA*        Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

 Military Decorations: None
Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: LOA, NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 71
*No Marks made available for review
Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960524:  Applicant meritoriously advanced to pay grade E-2.
960524:  Applicant accepts entry into Accelerated Advancement Program.
970630:  Unauthorized absence from USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) at Portsmouth, VA as of 0615, 970630.

 970630:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Portsmouth, VA 970630.
970701:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Norfolk, VA 970701.
970711:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Roosevelt Roads, PR 970711.

 970717:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Roosevelt Roads, PR 970717.
970726:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela, 970726.
970730:  Report of Declaration of Deserter (NAVPERS 1600-3). Applicant declared a deserter on 970730 having been an unauthorized absentee since 0615, 970630 from USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974).

 970806:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Cartagena, Columbia 970806.

970812:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Rodman, Panama, 970812.

970817:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Malaga, Columbia 970817.

970824:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Manta, Ecuador 970824.

970830:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Salinas, Ecuador 970830.

970902:  Missed sailing of USS COMTE DE GRASSE (DD-974) from Paita, Peru 970902.

970909:  Report of Return of Deserter. Applicant surrendered to military authorities on 970908 (1536) at TPU NAVSTA NORVA. Returned to TPU 970908 (1536). Retained on board pending return to parent command.
971022:  Applicant discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions in lieu of Trial by Court Martial per MILSPERMAN 3630650 [Extracted from DD Form 214].
Complete discharge package unavailable

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19971022 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D). The presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package (E).

Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. In the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense for which he was charged fully explained by counsel, that he was guilty of the offense and that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions. 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.

Issues 1 and 2: The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by the dissolution of his marriage and his immaturity as a young sailor. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that many members experience similar hardships to those of the Applicant. It must be further noted that the vast majority of those members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy who manage to serve honorably despite tremendous hardship, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized. Relief denied.

Issues 3 and 5: 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Board concluded unanimously that the Applicant’s post service conduct has not been sufficient to mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

Issue 4: The Applicant contends that his military service as a whole entitles him to an upgrade. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions discharge 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 an unauthorized absence of 70 days. More importantly, the record indicates that this unauthorized absence commenced prior to the deployment of the Applicant’s command. 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. Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.
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 any additional 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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURTMARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, unauthorized absence for a period more than 30 days] upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

 C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .
D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .
E. 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00993

    Original file (ND04-00993.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I went UA one more time. Commanding Officers Action: Process for separation, separate from service not via VA Hospital.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500602

    Original file (ND0500602.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01290

    Original file (ND02-01290.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01290 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code upgrade. The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.” A review of Applicant’s records indicated a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01294

    Original file (ND02-01294.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01294 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020912, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030722. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Handwritten letter from Applicant's wife (2 pages) Copies of DD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09957-02

    Original file (09957-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y BOARD FOR CORRECTION O F NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 TRG From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To : Docket No: 9957-02 6 August 2003 Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF - Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member in the Navy, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected, in effect, to show that his separation program...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01246

    Original file (ND03-01246.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01246 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030721. We received a letter from the Dept of the Navy Stating that I have a chance to waive my discharge code. 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00928

    Original file (ND04-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:1. Documentation In addition to the service record, NO DISCHARGE PACKAGE AVAILABLE, the following...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00904

    Original file (ND03-00904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00904 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030502. During the time I was UA, I was working and never did I get into trouble. Other reason: My acting LPO at the time MM1 D___ and my assaulterMM3 B___ were good friends.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01218

    Original file (ND03-01218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030710. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record review.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00433

    Original file (ND04-00433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. The Applicant is informed that there is no law or regulation that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.