Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01183
Original file (ND04-01183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-IC3, USN
Docket No. ND04-01183

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040722. 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 discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041122. 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/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.














PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

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

1.       “Dear DRB: The following issues are the reasons I believe ny discharge should be upgraded to Honorable. If you disagree, please explain in detail why you disagree. The presumption of regularity that might normally permit you to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing my service as less than Honorable does not apply to my case because of evidence I am submitting. Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for me to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge. My average conduct and efficiency ratings and proficiency marks were good. I received awards and decorations. I received letters of recommendation. I had combat service. My records of promotions showed I was generally a good service member. I was close to finishing my tour that it was unfair to give me a bad discharge. I have been a good citizen since discharge. The punishment I got at discharge was too harsh- it was much worse that most people got for the same offense.”
Documentation
The Applicant did not submit any additional documentation for the Board to consider during their deliberations of this case.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     921230 - 930523  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930524                Date of Discharge: 961114

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 05 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 58

 Highest Rate: IC3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (1)    Behavior: 3.60 (1)                OTA: 3.80

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

 930523:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (defective entry/ failed to disclose pre-service civil involvement/drug abuse), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.
950804:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (2 Specs): Uttering worthless checks and dishonorably failing to pay just debts. [Extracted from CO’s letter dated 960226]
951101:  Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
960126:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had not committed a serious offense, that the misconduct did not warrant separation, and recommended retention.

960307:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to next inferior paygrade (suspended for 3 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

961013:  LOI for possible involvement in sexual misconduct.
961015:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
961114:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency, notified of corrective actions and assistance available. [Extracted from CO’s letter dated 961120]
961120:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “Member was presented Statement of Awareness on 15 October 1996. Member was scheduled to meet with legal counsel on 21 October 1996 but failed to return within prescribed time. Neither member nor counsel requested extension of time to elect rights. Accordingly, member has waived his right to an administrative board and General Court Martial review.
         Member was previously processed for an administrative separation and was recommended for retention. This command supported the decision of the administrative board and afforded Petty Officer Burton an opportunity to continue his naval career.
         Unfortunately, Petty Officer Burton has continued with his pattern of disregard for rules and regulations. Because his misconduct has become more serious, I strongly recommend this member be separated from the naval service with an Other Than Honorable characterization.”  

Undated:         Commander, Submarine Group Two directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. [Extracted form CO’s letter dated 961120]

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19961114 under other than 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 record does not surrport the Applicant’s assertion his overall service record warrants an honorable discharge. When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. 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. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member’s conduct constitutes a significant departure of that expected of a Sailor. The Applicant’s service record is marred by award of non judicial punishment (NJP) on two separate occasions for violating the UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134, a Letter of Instruction for sexual misconduct and a Retention Warning for failing to disclose pre-service drug abuse thus substantiating his misconduct . The Applicant’s summary of service clearly reflects the Applicant ’ s disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and demonstrated he was unsuitable for further service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

 Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of punishment received as a result of a court-martial. NDRB is only authorized to consider clemency in bad conduct discharge cases.

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 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, 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 | ND01-00424

    Original file (ND01-00424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00424 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010220, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Letters from Applicant to BCNR (2) Copy of Enlisted Performance Record (2pgs) Copy of Enlisted Qualifications History Copy of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00868

    Original file (ND02-00868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Please review my records and consider upgrading me to an Honorable discharge. The Applicant’s conduct, and not his time served, forms the primary basis in determining his characterization of service. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | n0300223

    Original file (n0300223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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. 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 | 1999_Navy | ND99-00392

    Original file (ND99-00392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s vote was 3 to 2 that the character of the discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT- Commission of a Serious Offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500594

    Original file (ND0500594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submitted my appeal on Jan. 06 2003, Document 2. My appeal was denied by the commander of Cruiser-Destroyer Group Twelve, Document 2, Page 4, in the USS Enterprise Commanding Officers endorsement (Document 2, Page 3) he stated that I did not have a reason for submitting my appeal late (sentence 1,2, paragraph 3). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00899

    Original file (ND01-00899.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    970313: Applicant to confinement.970411: Applicant from confinement. Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Specification: Missed ship's movement on 7Oct96. 971027: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500283

    Original file (ND0500283.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 Despite their hardships, these sailors are still able to serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01399

    Original file (ND03-01399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My name is J_ L_ T_ (Applicant). 970911: Commanding Officer informed Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel (PERS-83) of concurrence with administrative discharge board’s findings and recommendation to discharge Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.970930: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general...