Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00962
Original file (ND04-00962.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-MA2, USN
Docket No. ND04-00962

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040527. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before a traveling panel closest to Homer City, PA. 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. The Applicant was also advised that the Board does not travel, all hearings are held in the Washington National Capital Region.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041112. 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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

1. “My discharge was improper because it was based off of one incident that occurred in 8 years 5 months 26 days of service. It also isn’t consistent with punishment given to others committed of the same crime.”
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
Copy of Domestic Disturbance Report (5 pages)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     890614 - 890622  COG
         Active: USN                        890623 - 960714  HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960715               Date of Discharge: 971218

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 03
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 2

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rate: MA2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2.86

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, JMU, SASM (wb*), AFEM, Expert Pistol Shot Medal, Navy Pistol Marksmanship Ribbon (Sharpshooter), Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbon (Marksman), KLM, GCA

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

960715:  Reenlisted at SECDET, NAS FALLON, NV for 2 years.
970929:  Charges preferred to special court-martial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 128: Assault, (2 Specifications), Specification 1: Did at U.S. Naval Forces Marianas Support Activity, on or about 970912 unlawfully assault D_ O_, by throwing her to the ground, dragging her numerous times and slapping her; Specification 2: Did at U.S. Naval Forces Marianas Support Activity, on or about 970914, unlawfully assault D_ O_, by kneeing her in the stomach, grabbing her leg and throwing her to the ground.

971031:  Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged, and admitted he was guilty of all the charges preferred against him. Specifically, he admitted to violating UCMJ, Article: 128: (2 Specifications) Assault. On or about 970912 and on or about 970914, MA2 O_ assaulted Mrs. D_ O_, his wife, by throwing her to the ground and kneeing her numerous times. The Applicant stated he was completely satisfied with the counsel he had received. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received therefrom may have a bearing.

971119:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): MA2 O_’s assault on his wife is totally unacceptable and I will neither condone nor tolerate this type of behavior from any sailor in my command, particularly a Master at Arms.

971121:  The Commanding Officer, exercising GCMCA, approved the request for an administrative separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial, and directed Applicant’s discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19971218 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). 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).

Issue 1: The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “8 years 5 months 26 days of service.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. On 19971031, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial. In the request the Applicant noted that his counsel had fully explained the elements of the offenses for which he was charged and that he was guilty of violating the UCMJ, Article 128 on two occassions. He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that characterization of service would be under other than honorable conditions. 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.

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, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, are examples of verifiable documents that should be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. At this time, the Applicant has not provided verifiable documentation of good character and conduct to 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 18, effective
12 Dec 1997 until 10 July 2000, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 128, upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial.

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.

D. 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.

E. 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 | ND99-00686

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01391

    Original file (ND03-01391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00182

    Original file (ND02-00182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00182 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011218, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The NDRB requested the Applicant provide pertinent documentation to the Board for review, if available. There is no evidence in the official record, nor did the Applicant provide any certifiable documentation that there was any impropriety during her enlistment concerning a lack of Command support, nor is there any...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00312

    Original file (ND03-00312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20021211. The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. , The sacrifice was for their well being NY mine The Navy could not be called upon to represent my wife, Whom were Not actually my wife at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00245

    Original file (ND04-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031121. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00827

    Original file (ND02-00827.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. Dear Board, It has been almost four years since I was discharged from the Navy due to my behavior. The Applicant's service record did not contain the DD Form 214 or any discharge documents, therefore, the Board closed the case without further action on December 11, 2001.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01014

    Original file (ND02-01014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    M_ H_ (Applicant) OSSA H_ (Applicant)'s personality disorder seems to have manifested after he learned that he would not be administratively separated after returning from a 15 day UA. Relief denied.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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500647

    Original file (ND0500647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. Relief is not warranted.The Applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was suffering from a mental condition while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500143

    Original file (ND0500143.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00143 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041029. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00335

    Original file (ND02-00335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Recommendation for Disposition from Discipline Officer, TPU, Norfolk PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970115 - 970128 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970129 Date of Discharge:...