Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500472
Original file (ND0500472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-AR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00472
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

 Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050125. The Applicant requests characterization of service received at the time of discharge changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list a representative on the DD Form 293.


Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050811. After a thorough review of all available 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/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 106 (formerly 3630650).




PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.
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)     030430 - 030806
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 030807               Date of Discharge: 040227

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 06 21
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 21                          Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 32

 Highest Rate: AR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                  Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

*Not available.

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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

 031120:  Violation of UCMJ Article 89 (disrespect toward superior commissioned officer) (CO letter dated Jan 05, 2004).

031215:  Violation of UCMJ Article 91 (insubordinate conduct toward petty officer) (CO letter dated Jan 05, 2004).

031230:  Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, place of duty), 1200 – 1343 (CO letter dated Jan 05,2005).

031231:  Applicant to pre-trial confinement.

040130:  Charges referred to special court martial. Applicant charged with violations of UCMJ Articles 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and 91 (insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer).

040219:  Applicant after consulting with counsel admits guilt to violation of UCMJ Articles 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and 91 (insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer), citing MILPERSMAN 1910-106 as reference, requests administrative discharge under than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial.

040223:  Commander, Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes recommends approval of Applicant’s request for discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trail by court-martial.

040225:  Commander, Naval Service Training Command, Great Lakes directs separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20040227 under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court martial (A and B). In this case, in the absence of a complete discharge package the Board applied the presumption of regularity of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

 Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. After a thorough review of Applicant’s case the Board discovered no impropriety or inequity. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, 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. Certain serious offenses warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service was marred by misconduct resulting in charges referred to special court-martial for violation of UCMJ Article 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and violation of UCMJ Article 91 (insubordinate conduct toward petty officer). Additionally, the Applicant was placed in pretrial confinement after a period of unauthorized absence on 30 December 2003. 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 short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

In a signed statement, the Applicant requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. He consulted with counsel and was fully advised of the implications of his request. The Applicant understood that if discharged under other than honorable conditions, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans' benefits based upon his current enlistment, and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered or the character of discharge received there from may have a bearing. The Applicant stated he understood the elements of the offenses with which he was charged. He admitted he was guilty of violating Articles 89 and 91. Relief denied.

The Applicant presented no issues. 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, or even made unsubstantiated accusations that his discharge was inequitable or improper. Relief denied.

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 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. The Applicant did not submit documentation for the board to consider. Based on a lack of sufficient post service factors 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. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. 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 2002 until Present, Article 1910-106 (formerly 3630650), SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. A punitive bad conduct discharge may be adjudged for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and Article 91 (insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer) upon conviction by a Special or General Court-Martial, in accordance with the Manual for Courts-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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500647

    Original file (ND0500647.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. requested an administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of a trial by court-martial. Relief is not warranted.The Applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was suffering from a mental condition while on active duty.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500143

    Original file (ND0500143.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00143 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 general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00119

    Original file (ND04-00119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00119 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031027. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :020304: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (5 Specifications): Failed to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: Restricted muster.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00870

    Original file (ND03-00870.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00870 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. If you are given a LAWFUL order by a superior, no matter what that order might be, you MUST obey it.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00176

    Original file (ND01-00176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00176 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001127, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 920707: Vacate suspended forfeiture of $183.00 and restriction for 14 days awarded at CO's NJP dated 23Mar92.920707: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 117: Wrongfully using provoking words on 18May92.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501360

    Original file (ND0501360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 910923: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his enlisted service record, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00048

    Original file (ND00-00048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00048 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Record Check from Department of Veterans Affairs Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00401

    Original file (ND02-00401.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00401 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020225, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. No indication of appeal in the record.930305: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Insubordinate conduct toward a senior petty officer, disrespectful in language), notified of corrective actions and assistance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500747

    Original file (ND0500747.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500280

    Original file (ND1500280.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...