Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01286
Original file (ND04-01286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AMEAR, USN
Docket No. ND04-01286

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040813. 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 20050214. 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 on the application:

1. “My military record was spotless and excellent leading up to the court martial.”

2. “I can’t believe for excellent record and accommodations were taken into account when I was sentenced.”

3. “ I feel this discharge was given unfairly I think I have carried this discharge long enough. I respectfully request you to upgrade this discharge so I can tell people I served in the US Navy with pride and Honor. ”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Citation, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     870317 - 871025  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 871026               Date of Discharge: 930422

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 05 28                  [Does not exclude lost time]
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 70

 Highest Rate: AMEA3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.84 (5)             Behavior: 3.80 (5)                OTA: 3.60

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 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 :

910830:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 108.
         Specification: Did on board Air Anti-Submarine Squadron 41, willfully damage an aircraft by etching the letters FTN on the TACCO SENSO windows of aircraft number 737.
         Finding: Guilty
         Sentence: Confinement for 5 months, RIR to E-1 and Bad Conduct Discharge.
         CA 930109: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
        
910830:  To confinement.

920104:  From confinement; to appellate leave.
921007:  NMCCMR: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.
930422:  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 19930422 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).

Issues 1-3. 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 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 offense he committed. 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 108, destruction of military property.

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 | ND04-00071

    Original file (ND04-00071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, a documentary review was conducted, and the Applicant is not eligible for further review by this Board. 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 86, unauthorized absence for more than 30 days.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00970

    Original file (ND04-00970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19970930 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. 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 81, conspiracy; Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01251

    Original file (ND02-01251.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service on the basis of his post-service conduct. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 980511 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly constituted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01196

    Original file (ND99-01196.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. 841214: 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 850110 with a bad conduct due to convicted by a special court martial (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00268

    Original file (ND04-00268.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00268 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031209. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20000321 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00698

    Original file (ND04-00698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 Copy of Applicant’s ID Card PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920416 Date of Discharge: 960411 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 03 04 04 (Does not exclude lost time) Inactive: 00 07 23 ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01195

    Original file (ND02-01195.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 149 Letter from Applicant Letter of recommendation from P_ E. B_ Letter of recommendation from H. W. J_ Drug screening certification dated June 18, 2002 Letter of recommendation from W_ L. C_ Letter of recommendation from L_ H_ Letter of recommendation from A_ D. N_ PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00941

    Original file (ND02-00941.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Equity Issue) Pursuant to 10 USC 874 (b) (UCMJ, Article 74) and in accordance with SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraphs 2.24 and 9.3, this former member requests the Board’s clemency relief with up-grade of his characterization of service to under honorable conditions on the basis of his post-service conduct. CA 930608: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge, but the execution of that part of the sentence adjudging confinement and forfeiture of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00469

    Original file (ND04-00469.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19900321 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500007

    Original file (ND0500007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record and issues submitted, 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.