Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01184
Original file (ND04-01184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND04-01184

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 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 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: BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
 Applicant’s issues, as stated:

 1. “ISSUES: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request.
The following issues are the reasons I believe my discharge should be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). My problems started when a friend, K_, and I went to a golf tournament in Florida. I placed first in the tournament and won a large sum of money. K_ told me not to tell anyone about winning the money. He said that if I told anyone he would get me into trouble with the Commander. I was young and very immature and believed K_. I was very confused and did not understand how K_ would get me into trouble but I believed him. Upon returning to my ship I deposited the large check in a checking account. I did not understand that it would be several days before the money was available. I purchased a car and wrote a check for it. The check bounced because the money was not available in my account. The bounced check was reported to my ship. I was called in and counseled by my senior chief. The senior chief showed me the check and we discussed what had occurred. After discussing the matter the senior chief said that he would tear up the check and nothing further would happen.
This turned out to be false as I was charged and sent to Captain’s Mast where I was reduced to E- 1, fined and confined to the ship. I had a Navy lawyer who was no help to me at all. I tried several times to discuss my case with the lawyer but he refused. During the hearing he just handed me sticky notes to read to the judge of the case. I was not allowed to call witnesses. I believe the lawyer did not fairly represent me.
I believe the charges against me were excessive due to the circumstances. I do not believe that I should have been given a Bad Conduct discharge. I believe my immaturity and lack of understanding of what was happening prevented me from effectively defending myself. I also question why I was not allowed to review and sign my DD Form 214 when I was discharged. I should have been given the opportunity to review the type of separation and character of service before the DD Form 214 was issued. I am requesting that my discharge be upgraded to General (Under Honorable Conditions). I do not believe that my conduct warrants a Bad Conduct Discharge. Please take in to consideration my youth and immaturity at the time this incident occurred. Since my discharge I have matured greatly and have no problems handling my financial affairs as attested to in the attached letters.

 Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
          Ltr from J_ B_ dtd 040113
         Ltr from J_ G_ undated
         Ltr from P_ F_, Ph.D.
PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870624 - 880619  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 880620               Date of Discharge: 920807

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 01 18                  [Does not exclude lost time]
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 44

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.40 (1)    Behavior: 3.50 (2)                OTA: 3.40

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: CGSSR, CGBUC

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 5

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
BAD CONDUCT/Convicted by special court martial, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3640420.


 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

 900616:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: Falsely signing an official document.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2 (Susp 6 mos.). No indication of appeal in the record.
900627:  Counseling: Advised of deficiency (Failure of PRT standards), notified of corrective actions and assistance available.

910426:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (3) Specifications:
         Specification 1: Failure to go at time prescribed on 15 Sep 90.
         Specification 2: UA from unit from 0630, 16 Sep 90 to 0530 17 Sep 90.
         Specification 3: UA from unit from 14 Oct 90 to 18 Oct 90.
         Chare II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87.
         Specification: Miss movement through design 15 Oct 90.
         Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 123a, (3) Specifications:
         Specification 1: With intent to deceive, a check for $4000.00
         Specification 2: With intent to deceive, a check for $29482.00
         Specification 3: With intent to deceive, a check for $150.00
         Charge IV: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, Specification:
         Specification: Make under lawful oath a false statement in substance as follows: that he believed that two hundred thousand dollars had been deposited in his checking account and that there were sufficient funds to cover checks in the amount of $4000.00 and $29482.00.
         Findings: To all charges and specifications, guilty, except to Charge II, which shall be by neglect in lieu of by design.
         Sentence: Confinement for 6 months, forfeiture of $500 per month for (6) months, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 910426: Sentence approved and ordered executed except for 75 das of confinement which is susp for a period of 6 mos, except for bad conduct discharge.
         SA: see SSPCMO.

910821:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
911210:  No petition for review received by NMCARA, appellate review complete.

920807 :         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 19920807 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).

Issue 1. The Applicant states, “I did not understand that it would be several days before the money was available” and “…the lawyer did not fairly represent me” in support of upgrading his discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant also states, “After discussing the matter the senior chief said that he would tear up the check and nothing further would happen.” Finally, the Applicant requests the Board take into consideration the Applicant’s “youth and immaturity at the time the incident occurred.”

With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. After considering the Applicant’s statements and the evidence of record, the Board determined that there was no indication that the Applicant was denied any due process and that the Applicant’s youth and immaturity did not merit clemency. Further, a fter a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Relief denied.

Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that he did not understand that it would several days before money was available, relevant and material facts stated in court-martial specifications are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The Applicant was found guilty at court-martial of three specifications of a Violation of 123a of the UCMJ, for uttering checks with the intent to deceive. 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. 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), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, 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 86 (unauthorized absence for more than 30 days), Article 87 (missing movement through neglect) and Article 123 (checks, etc, more than $100).

C. 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 | ND04-00672

    Original file (ND04-00672.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Specifically, the NDRB found that the Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudical punishment and special court-martial convictions for violations of Articles 86, 112a, and 123a of the UCMJ. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00124

    Original file (ND04-00124.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00124 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031022. Thank you so much for your time and understanding.” _________________________________________________________________ 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00315

    Original file (ND03-00315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of UCMJ Article 134, Wrongfully receive military allowance of about $800.00. Sentence: To be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00943

    Original file (ND99-00943.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 discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s first issue states: “The discharge was unfair because the CPO of my division discriminated against me constantly for unknown reasons which created a negative response from me.” The applicant provided no documentation to support this issue and the NDRB found no evidence in the record to support it. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500271

    Original file (MD0500271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00271 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041129. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Letter from Applicant (3 pgs), undtd Statement in Support of Claim from Applicant (2 pgs), undtd Letter from Applicant dtd February 25, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600783

    Original file (ND0600783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (use of a controlled substance) and 83 (fraudulent enlistment).C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 205(2), Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges . D....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01040

    Original file (ND03-01040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 126.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501269

    Original file (MD0501269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-01269 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050714. Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 90: Specification: Received a lawful command from First Lieutenant R_ C. F_ USMC, not to go on leave or words to that effect did go on leave on or about 2145 5 July willfully disobey an order. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20000922 by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (A and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01197

    Original file (ND03-01197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to this Applicant’s petition.Review of the service record reflects that this former member was awarded NJP for on 860821 for VUCMJ, Art. Sentence: CHL for 90 days, forfeiture of $400 per...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600429

    Original file (ND0600429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application: “ Respectfully request change of bad conduct discharge into an honorable discharge, also please change my separation code:jjd/901 and re-entry code of re4. 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 violations of the UCMJ, Articles 86 (Unauthorized...