Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00642
Original file (ND04-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-ET2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00642

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040312. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing before the Board in the Washington National Capital Region. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, the Applicant obtained representation by the American Legion.

Decision

A personal appearance discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041028. 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: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.





PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Issues, as stated

Issues submitted by Applicant and Applicant’s representative (American Legion):

“1. (Equity Issue) This former member avers that his reason for discharge, as evidenced by his assigned GKL separation code, is erroneous and warrants the Board’s relief with an amendment to Secretarial Authority.
2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board consider provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of this application.
 _________________________________________________________________
In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.

The American Legion’s express purpose in providing this statement, and any other submittals or evidence filed, is to assist this Applicant in the clarification and resolution of the impropriety or inequity raised. To that end, we rest assured that the NDRB’s final decision will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion as promulgated by title 10 U.S.C., section 1553 and set forth in 32 C.F.R., part 724 and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1).

This case is now respectfully submitted for deliberation and disposition. ”



Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD 2l4
Previously submitted DD Form 293 , dated April 17, 2001
NDRB Docket Assignment Letter, dated April 25, 2001
NDRB Delayed Discharge Review Letter, dated July 12, 2001
NDRB Discharge Review Decisional Document
Department of the Navy Letter, dated June 15, 2002/DD Form 215
Sailor of the Quarter Designation Letter, January through March 1984
Air Force Commendation Medal Certificate
Enlisted Surface Warfare Certificate, dated June 20, 1986
Submarine Qualification Certificate, dated June 30, 1991
Navy Recruiting Command Letter of Commendation, dated May 27, 1993
Navy Achievement Medal Certificate (1 Award), dated October10, 1994
LDO Application, dated July 30, 1993
Special Court Martial Amending Order 1 A-95, dated April 17, 1995
Results of Trial Letter, dated June 28, 1995
Message, dated 011500Z May 95
Letter from J_ H_ concerning accuser T_ F_, dated September 21, 1995
Navy Achievement Medal Certificate (2nd Award), dated August 18, 1996
Designation of Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist, dated April 11, 1997
Navy Achievement Medal Certificate (3rd Award), dated April 24, 1997
Letter from accuser T_ F_, dated September 22, 1995
Letter from accuser S_ M_, dated September 27, 1995
Denial of new trial letter, dated March 31, 1997
Request for Counsel for Admin Board Proceedings, dated April 17, 1997
Retention Letter from Lt K_ E_ K_, Defense Counsel, dated June 19. 1997
Charge Sheet ICO MS1 A_ J_ G_
Message, dated 031242Z Jan 96
Admin Board Questionnaire from Capt R_ C_
Letter to Admin Board from Capt R_ C_, dated May 20, 1997
Letter to Admin Board from LCDR E_ Z_
Admin Board Questionnaire from RMCS(SW) S_ H_
Admin Board Questionnaire from ABEl W_ C_
ASVAB test results, dated February 24, 2004
(hh) Copy of College Diploma, dated December 16, 1999
(ii) Notary Public Certificate
 (jj) Letter of Recommendation
 Membership card from American Legion
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1)
Letter of reference, dated October 27, 2004
United States Postal Service letter, dated February 20, 2004
Applicant’s ASVAB scoring sheet, dated October 10, 2004
Letter of reference, not dated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     810728 - 810916  COG
         Active: USN                        810917 - 840823  HON
                  USN                       840824 - 900529  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900530                        Date of Discharge: 970812

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 07 02 13
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 25

 Years Contracted: 5 (extended to 971109) [Extracted from CO, NAS JAX letter of 970609.]

 Education Level: 9 (GED)                           AFQT: 48

 Highest Rate: QM1(SS)

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.85 (7)             Behavior: 3.80 (7)                OTA: 3.85       4.0 evals
 Performance: 3.00 (4)             Behavior: 3.25 (4)                OTA: 3.63       5.0 evals
Military Decorations: NAM (3)

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: AFCM, MUC, NUC, GCM (3), NATO Medal, NDSM, SSR (5), Recruiter Ribbon, SSW Insignia, EAWS Insignia, ESWS Insignia, SSBN Patrol Pin, NER

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.


 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900530:  Reenlisted at the Navy Recruiting District, New York for 5 years.

950421:  Special Court-Martial
          Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, (13 specifications): violation of a lawful general regulation.
 Specification 1: Wrongfully attempting to form a dating or social relationship with prospect S_ M_ on or about Jun 94.
Specification 2: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect S_ M_ by hugging her on or about Aug 94.
Specification 3: Wrongfully harassing prospect S_ M_ on or about Aug 94. Specification 4: Wrongfully harassing and using abusive language toward prospect T_ F_ on or about Jul 94.
 Specification 5: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect T_ F_ by taking her hand in his, moving it to his mouth and licking her fingers on or about Aug 94.
 Specification 6: Wrongfully attempting to form a dating or social relationship with and by harassing prospect T_ W_ on or about 22 Sep 94. Specification 7: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with C_ H_, a prospect, Applicant or DEP person on or between 1 Aug and 14 Sep 94. Specification 8: Wrongfully entering the hotel rooms of Applicants C_ H_ and D_ S_ at a MEPS lodging facility, on or about 11 Aug 94. Specification 9: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with Applicant C_ H_ on or between 1 Aug and 14 Sep 94.
Specification 10: Was derelict in performing his duties in that he willfully failed to ensure Applicant C_ H_’s prior drug usage and hospitalization were reported and recorded during her processing for enlistment, as it was his duty to do, on or between 1 Aug and 14 Sep 94.
Specification 11: By harassing M_ F_, an Applicant or DEP person, on or about Oct 93.
Specification 12: By wrongfully engaging in physical contact with M_ F_ an Applicant or DEP person, by having intercourse with her on or between Oct 93 and 1 Feb 94.
Specification 13: By wrongfully sexually harassing AKAA M_ F_ , USN, by calling her into his office, appearing before her in boxer shorts and asking her to “feel his silk” or words to that effect, on or about Apr 94.
Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 128 (4 Specifications):
Specification 1: Unlawfully hold and restrain S_ M_ M_ by wrapping his arms around her body in August 1974.
Specification 2: Unlawfully touch the hand of T_ M_ F_ by holding her hand to his mouth and licking her fingers.
Specification 3: Unlawfully touch C_ A_ H_ by pinching her breast with his hands on two occasions, grabbing her pubic area with his hand once, and slapping her on the buttocks with his hand on three occasions between 940801 and 940914.
Specification 4: Unlawfully touch C_ A_ H_ by rubbing her pelvic area with his hand, inserting his finger into her vagina and moving said finger in and out, and placing and holding her hand on his penis and moving her hand up and down on 940811.
Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (7 Specifications and an additional Charge of Article 134):
Specification 1: On or about Aug 94 commit an indecent assault upon S_ M_ by holding her body against his without consent.
Specification 2: On or about Aug 94 commit an indecent assault upon T_ F_ by taking her hand in his, moving it to his mouth and licking her fingers.
Specification 3: On or about 22 Sep 94 communicate indecent language to T_ W_.
 Specification 4: On or between 1 Aug and 14 Sep 94 commit an indecent assault upon C_ H_ by touching her on the breast, pubic area and buttocks. Specification 5: On or about 11 Aug 94 commit an indecent assault upon C_ H_ by touching her pelvic area and placing her hand on his penis. Specification 6: On or about 19 Aug 94 indecently exposed his genitals in public.
 Specification 7: On or about Nov 94 communicated indecent language to L_ F_ and M_ F_.
Additional specification: On or between Oct 93 and Feb 94 commit adultery.
Findings: to Charge I and specifications 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, and 13 thereunder, guilty.
Charge II and specification 1 thereunder not guilty and specifications 2, 3, 4, dismissed.
Charge III and specifications 2 and additional charge of 134 - guilty
Sentence: Confined 15 days, serve 45 days hard labor without confinement, forfeiture of $500 per month for 6 months, reduction to E-5, and letter of reprimand.
CA 950628: Sentence approved and ordered executed.
950423:  Applicant confined to NAS Jacksonville Brig.

950508:  Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty.

950628:  Punitive Letter of Reprimand issued to Applicant.

960531:  Applicant petitioned for a new trial.

970331:  JAG denied new trial.

 970414:  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 Special Court-Martial on 950421 as documented in service record.
970414:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

970521:  An Administrative Discharge Board, by a vote of 2 to 1, recommended the Applicant be retained.

 970522:  Dissenting Board Member’s (CDR L_ T_, USN) statement.

 970609:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Special Court-Martial on 950421 . Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): “a. I do not concur with the Board’s recommendation for retention of ET2 C_ (Applicant). I believe the seriousness of the misconduct clearly supports additional review of this case for separation.
 b. Petty Officer C_ (Applicant) was in a position of trust. He was in the forefront, dealing with the public on behalf of the Navy. He violated general regulations by sexually harassing, sexually assaulting, and committing adultery with prospective recruits. His misconduct victimized prospective female recruits and the reputation of the naval service. His actions cannot be condoned. I strongly believe that not separating ET2 C_ (Applicant) sends the wrong signal regarding the Navy’s policy on sexual harassment.
c. I request this case be forwarded for further review by the Secretary of the Navy. Because of ET2 C_ (Applicant)’s otherwise outstanding service record, I recommend his separation be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).”
970623:  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense - [indecent assault].
970702:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense - [indecent assault].

970728:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved recommendation for discharge.

020221:  NDRB documentary record review Docket Number ND01-00675 conducted. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted.

Separation authority not available to the Board

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19970812 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to 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: The Applicant’s representative stated that the reason for the Applicant’s discharge, as evidenced by his assigned GKL separation code, is erroneous and warrants the Board’s relief with an amendment to Secretarial Authority. The record shows the Applicant was found guilty at a Special Court-Martial of violations of the UCMJ, Article 92, violation of a lawful order (6 specifications), Article 134, indecent assault, and Article 134, Adultery. All of these offenses are considered serious military offenses. The assignment of the separation code GKL (Sexual Perversion) accurately describes the reason the Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense – [indecent assault]. Relief is not warranted.

Issue 2: 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. The Board commends the Applicant on his educational achievements, however, t he Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate his misconduct sufficient to warrant an upgrade to his discharge. Therefore, no relief will be granted.
The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant. The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

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 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00675

    Original file (ND01-00675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00675 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. THE CO OF NAS JAX DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ADMIN SEPARATION BOARD DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DISCHARGE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 970609: Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00686

    Original file (ND99-00686.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00686 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Specification 3: In that HN D_ L. E_ did, at the Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida, on or about April 1995, commit an indecent assault upon K_ R. G_ a person not his wife, by sliding his hands up and down her leg, with the intent to gratify his lust or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00370

    Original file (MD02-00370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Lack of training by the recruiting command and improper training from the recruiting station NCOIC led to all charges against me. 010815: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions, but recommended suspension of the separation for 12...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600672

    Original file (MD0600672.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Private First Class B_ (Applicant) has stated to HM2 H_, “That I have no desire to return to the unit and remain in the Marine Corps.” HM2 P_ had told Private First Class B_ (Applicant) the way to correct his deficiencies through his chain of command and that if he did not then a list of consequences was given to him under the references (a) and (b). Private First Class B_ (Applicant) did not show up for the May drill and was given Unexcused for those drills. It is requested that Private...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501045

    Original file (ND0501045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050606. The Commanding Officers. Appeal denied 031103.031008: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense-misconduct.031008: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500630

    Original file (ND0500630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Discharge Board found: “SVCM admits violation of Artical (sic) 92 member signed PG 13 indicated SVCM new (sic) command policy but commited (sic) actions anyway.” 030717: Commanding Officer, USS RAINER (AOE 7), recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by Commanding Officer’s Non-Judicial punishment held on 13 April 2003 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00288

    Original file (ND04-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. They stated that they felt the harassment charges were to serious to dismiss based on the allegations but they didn’t feel like it was serious enough to take to court martial, and I don’t feel that it was fair and just. I felt that the entire time this situation was going on chiefs.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500005

    Original file (ND0500005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Commanding Officer’s comments: “After thorough review of the entire case of the SNM, I have determined that the facts and circumstances in this case warrant discharge with a characterization of service of other than honorable conditions.”BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.970113: NDRB Docket Number ND96-01293, document review conducted. In the Applicant’s case the record clearly documented...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600841

    Original file (ND0600841.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SA: see SSPCMO.Applicant to confinement at Naval Station Brig.Applicant from confinement.930225: Applicant to appellate leave.930729: NC&PB clemency not granted; restoration denied.931022: NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.940926: Appellate review complete.941004: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances...

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-00516

    Original file (MD02-00516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was in the Marine corps going on 6 years. If it was serious enough for me to get discharged, then she should have been also. I was discharged 6 days after being told I was receiving another than honorable discharge.