Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500021
Original file (ND0500021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00021

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20040927. 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 20050107. 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 3630600.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “My discharge form the U.S. Navy was predicated on a misunderstanding between myself and one other Petty Officer. Although I acknowledge culpability regarding this incident 1 believe that the punishment levied was not commensurate with the offence. I have always and continue to hold the U.S. Navy and those that serve in the highest of esteem. I hope to upgrade both my discharge and RE code. In light of current events, I would like the opportunity to serve our nation honorably within the uniformed service.
As stated in item 12a, I hope to upgrade both my discharge and RE code. In light of current events, I would like the opportunity to serve our nation honorably within the uniformed service. I have grown over the last 10 years and feel that I have reached a level of maturity that would foster superior (honorable) and noteworthy service. I have unique qualifications, including fluent Arabic language skills that would prove to be beneficial to the uniformed services. I also held a Top Secret security clearance enabling mc to contribute to the most sensitive of military operations. I believe updating my security status should be easy to accomplish. A review of my military records will glean the fact that I always exhibited superior performance as it relates to physical fitness. I was the recipient of two presidential fitness awards. I thank you for your consideration of this application.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
None

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     930806 - 930811  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930812               Date of Discharge: 940616

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 10 05
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 65

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.00 (1)             Behavior: 2.80 (1)                OTA: 3.00

 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 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

940128:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: UA.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 7 days, reduction to SR (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

940408:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (indecent assault and UA), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

940408:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Fail to go to quarterdeck watch at time prescribed; violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Indecent assault toward an E-5 female.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150.00, restriction and extra duty for 14 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.
940428:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (4 specs): Fail to go to restricted muster at time prescribed.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00, 3 days bread and water. No indication of appeal in the record.
940502:  BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. [Date presumed to be incorrect.]
940512:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
940512:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
940522:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19940616 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. A characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is warranted when the member's conduct constitutes a significant departure from that expected of a sailor. T he Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on three occasions for unauthorized absences and an indecent assault. The Applicant’s indecent assault is considered a serious offense under the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives which regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable or under honorable (general) characterization of service. An upgrade is inappropriate. Relief denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.

The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country. Normally, to permit relief, an inequity or impropriety must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such inequity or impropriety occurred during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct. Relief not warranted.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his 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), Change 5, effective
05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. 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.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00135

    Original file (ND00-00135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 940707: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 940720 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00355

    Original file (ND00-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If I had property that was stolen and knew the items were stolen, I could not justly be held guilty of the other charges. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USNR (DEP) 910326 - 910521 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 910522 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00590

    Original file (ND01-00590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 Board considers this a none decisional issue.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00563

    Original file (ND03-00563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. Additionally, t he Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities as requested in the issue.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00709

    Original file (MD03-00709.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040224. I worked on base until the Commanding Officer Major P. L. N_ discussed my place in the service with the Marine Corps in the future due to I requested an early out from the US Marine Corps.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00572

    Original file (ND01-00572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00572 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010327, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "other". Criminal Branch: Having plead not guilty, and having moved for trial by jury and the Commonwealth having moved the Court to defer prosecution for a period of 1 year with the recommendation that if no other similar charges resulted in convictions during that term,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01077

    Original file (ND99-01077.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like to ask the review to change discharge to honorable. 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).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that the applicant had 3 NJPs within one year and seven months of service. Specifically, he was briefed that an Honorable discharge after completion of 36 months on active duty would be required for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01127

    Original file (ND02-01127.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. FA (Applicant) (myself) was denied right to speak with commanding officer after going thru proper procedure, to discuss extenuating circumstances/2. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Statement from Applicant, dated October 29, 2002 Applicant's DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00105

    Original file (ND01-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant (3pgs) Response Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copy of DD Form 214 Congressional correspondence, dated 22 March 2001 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: NONE Inactive: NONE Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890412 Date of Discharge: 920427 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00190

    Original file (ND02-00190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Reference Letter from D___ L. R____ dtd March 23, 2001 Employment Reference Letter from P____ T___, Grocery Mgr, dtd July 26, 2000 Letter from Applicant dtd November 8, 2001 Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 850116 - 890112 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 841019 - 850115 COG...