Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500434
Original file (ND0500434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-BMSN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00434

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050112. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a personal appearance hearing discharge review before the Board in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

Decision

A documentary review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050428. 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 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 1. “Was told one thing by legal in GTMOBAY, Cuba then changed in NASJAX, TPU, Jax, FL felt was screwed over by NASJAX TPU JAX Legal Dept. When I was first told of the infraction, NCIS stated it was wrongful use of a government computer and dereliction of duty. 2 days later, I was told by GTMO Bay Legal that I was being charged with misconduct. Upon arrival in NAS JAX TPU JAX the Legal Dept told me it was no use to fight it because I’d “be going up against 3 people with 20 + years of service against my 2 yrs of service.” I feel this was inappropriate advice as I feel the charge and discharge were not warranted. I lost 21 days leave and was not paid for those days. I wish to get represented by Vets. AFF.”
REMARKS : “I wish to have my discharge changed to BM3 W_ L. K_ JR not BMSN K_. I was sent up to see the C.O. of GTMO BAY, Cuba for being falsely accused of the wrong crime. I was treated wrongfully by the Legal Dept. at Naval AIRSTAJAX, TPU JAX.

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

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     011121 - 020708  COG
         Active: USN                        None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 020709               Date of Discharge: 040728

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 02 00 19
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                          Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 37

 Highest Rate: BM3

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMA*                 Behavior: NMA             OTA: NMA

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SSDR

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*No Marks made available for review.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

050518:  Applicant, along with entire Port Operations department verbally counseled in regards to viewing illegal web sites on a Government computer.
040624:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: On or about 040617, fail to obey a lawful general regulation, to wit: Department of Defense Regulation 5500.7-R (Joint Ethnic Regulation) dated August 1993, by using a government owned computer to view pornographic image and to engage in conversation of a sexual nature.
         Award: Forfeiture of $1/2 month’s pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-3. No indication of appeal in the record.
040713:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Applicant notified that if separation is approved, the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.
040713:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27(b), elected to waive all rights except the right to submit statements to the Administrative Board or the Separation Authority in lieu of a board and the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
040713:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

040715:  CNMPC 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 20040728 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and 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. Normally, to permit relief, an impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No such impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by an orders violation in that he unlawfully used his government computer to view pornographic materials and engage in sexually explicit conversations over the Internet. Furthermore, the Applicant’s conduct occurred after he had been verbally counseled about viewing illegal websites a month earlier. The Applicant’s misconduct resulted in nonjudicial punishment proceedings for a violation of UCMJ Article 92, failure to obey order or regulation. 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. Such conduct falls far short of that expected of a member of the U.S. military and does not meet the requirements for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that he received inappropriate advice from the legal department of Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was advised inappropriately by the legal department of Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB does not have the authority to reinstate a sailor’s lost rank as requested. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of change. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning relief in this matter.

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), re-issued October 2002,
effective 22 Aug 02 until Present, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION 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 92, for failure to obey order or regulation, 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 | ND01-00681

    Original file (ND01-00681.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00681 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010420, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to administrative. The separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct. However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00586

    Original file (ND04-00586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00586 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00481

    Original file (ND02-00481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00481 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020308, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. We also respectfully request that the board consider each reasonable explanation submitted by the (FSM) who now wishes to correct the general character of his discharge to Honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600423

    Original file (ND0600423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Appeal denied on 031203 [extracted from Applicant’s supporting documents].031123: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation. The GCMCA reviewed his request and directed that ISSA S_ (Applicant) be separated.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600281

    Original file (ND0600281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501431

    Original file (ND0501431.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01431 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050901. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “RE-2/HONORABLE.” The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. I believe I deserve another chance to enlist and show my ability to succeed as an outstanding sailor in the United States Navy .

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01345

    Original file (ND03-01345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that his discharge was appropriate and that his evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct for which he was discharged. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00828

    Original file (ND01-00828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00828 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010605, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980129 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00338

    Original file (ND04-00338.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “I am requesting my discharge be changed from General(Under Honorable Conditions) to Honorable.My contention is that I was given this discharge without evidence to support the charges. I didn’t know to ask to see what evidence was used against me. Relief denied.Issue 2: In Applicant’s second issue, he claims his discharge was inequitable because he had never been in trouble or to nonjudicial punishment before and he had been a good sailor looking to continue his service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00779

    Original file (ND01-00779.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00779 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010516, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). 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...