Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500139
Original file (ND0500139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

, ex-SA, USNR
Docket No. ND05-00139

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 honorable. 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 20050118. 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: GENERAL (UNDER 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. “I was 18 years old at the time and made 2 bad decisions. I am now 26 years old, have received my bachelors degree in criminology and have recently graduated from a police acadamy in Indiana, PA receiving my PA ACT 120 which certifies me as a police officer in Pennsylvania.

I made a mistake when I was younger, but I have matured a great deal in these last 8 years and would like to serve my country in another way as a police officer. I am very sorry for what I have done in the past. I take full responsibility for my actions then. I am a very responsible and productive citizen and love being a police officer.”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Police Training Academy certificate dtd 031121
Police Training Academy grade report dtd 031121
Bachelor of Arts certificate dtd 030510
MAC student transcript (2 pages)
Applicant’s DD Form 214

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960423 - 960707  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 960708               Date of Discharge: 970131

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 24
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 53

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*                 Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF

*No marks found in service record

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630605.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

961217:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement. Violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny, on 4 December 1996 steal one bottle of cologne of a value of about $30.00.
         Award: Forfeiture of $430 per month for 2 month(s), restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

961226:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization as under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
961226:  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.
970102:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

970128:  Commander, NAWC Weapons Division directed the Applicant's GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) discharge 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 19970131 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A & 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. A General discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 107 and 121 of the UCMJ. Violations of Article 107, making a false official statement, are considered serious offenses. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 naval service. The NDRB is authorized, however, to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that should be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. 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), Change 14, effective
03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 107, false official statement if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

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.

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

E. 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. 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 issue states: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00723

    Original file (ND00-00723.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pt states he was diagnosed as an alcoholic but not documentation in health record. Pt was told to come find me at any time if situation became too stressful. 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).In response to the applicant’s issue 1, a member does not have to be “charged with a crime” or have a court martial or NJP to be administratively separated...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500158

    Original file (ND0500158.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00158 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20041101. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to HONORABLE. In reviewing the Applicant’s statements and service record, the Board found no evidence of impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00032

    Original file (ND04-00032.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to entry level separation or uncharacterized. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040712. 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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398

    Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). ]990517: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00275

    Original file (ND04-00275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00275 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031201. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “ADMIN SEP.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:License PhotographApplicant’s DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00928

    Original file (ND00-00928.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board has no authority to change re-enlistment codes or make recommendations to permit re-entry into the Naval Service or any other...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600034

    Original file (ND0600034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). 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 implies that his discharge was improper because he was denied Captain’s Mast. The summary of service clearly...

  • 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00028

    Original file (ND01-00028.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is, therefore, recommended that Seaman Apprentice (applicant) be separated administratively from the Naval Service under General (Under Honorable conditions). 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 issues state: “I have been a good citizen since discharge.” and “I have been working and saving money to go to college.” The applicant...