Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500587
Original file (ND0500587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SKSR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00587

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050223. 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 review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050608. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, an 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 change. The discharge shall become: HONORABLE/COMPLETON OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

 “To whom it may concern,


I’m writing this letter to you respectfully asking to upgrade my discharge from a general under honorable to an honorable discharge. Since my General Court martial on September 26th 1997 my life has been turned upside down. I’m not a bad person but I did make a bad choice, when I decided to listen to others and not my heart, I fell for the oldest temptation known to man “greed”.

I take full responsibility for my actions in the crime I did against the Navy and my count. All I can do is move forward one day at a time, I don’t go out and tell everyone I meet about my past, but if someone need’s to know, I’m honest with him or her. It has come back to haunt me for job interviews, but I refuse to give up and I’m now considering returning back to college to improve my knowledge and my self worth.

It will take years to prove to people the true me, I believe that if was on the other end of this problem, I would have trouble trusting the other person too, but I do believe in second chances and if a person could prove to me that their past is just that and not want to repeat their mistake, I would be willing to give that person the second chance that they deserve.

Enclosed with this letter you can find letters from people that I have become good friends with in different aspects of my life. From my parish priest Fr. D_ to my friends and now family members, I do believe I’m harder on myself then my friends or family by questioning myself everyday asking why, and being turned down for good jobs because of my past. It has been over seven years since my conviction and have no plans of ever being in any trouble.

I have learn that it being a better and stronger person by walking away from this type of situation or any other type of trouble that would land my behind bars again. I made a promise to myself on the day I was released form the brig and that promise is from the feeling that I had on the moment I step outside the gates a free man, that not ever would I be behind bars again, I realized that my freedom was my chose and when your told what to do when to do it every moment of the eight months I was in the brig freedom felt so good that I told promised myself that I was staying clean for the rest of my life.

I am not proud of what I’ve done; I have made sure that the truth was not kept from anyone on either side of our family. It is very important for me to be honest now more than ever because of my past. I’m not telling you all this to brag, rather I’m telling you this to let you know how I’m coping with this problem in my everyday life.

This letter is one of the second hardest letter I have ever had to write, the first one was to my parents when I told them of the trouble I was in and I knew that it would hurt them to know the son they were proud of had made a major mistake and had mined his career, looking back now I see how stupid if was of me to do what I did, and that was to deceive my superiors and to take what was not mine.

Do I deserve to be punished the rest of my life? No I truly believe everyone needs a second chance, all of us can look back in our past to where someone gave you a second chance, and that’s all I’m asking for. If I could go back and change one thing in my life it would be the stupid mistake of abusing my power that the Navy gave to me to use for the Combined Bachelor Quarters in Panama. I used those power to benefit my family at the time my wife, now ex-wife. I look back at the situation now and ask myself why I did not go to my Supply officer and inform him that I should have my contracting authority removed. I have waited a few years since my release to send in this request of mine, so that I could show the board reviewing this request, what I have accomplished and where I plan to go in the fixture. What the fixture holds for me is what I make of it; I do intent to make the most out of what I have left.

There is no easy answer for me, I am presently struggling financially knowing that the poor choice I made years ago is still haunting me. And you hold in your power to grant me this request. All I’m asking is a second chance. The following letters will testify on my accord of the changes I have gone through and the people that I meet after my release and what I have done. Please take some time to read them so that you can understand more about the true me.

Since my release form the Navy Brig:

Graduated Southern Ohio College in June 2002 with a G.P.A of 3.78.

I have been involved with my church as a Eucharist Minister.

I have been employed until recently when I was laid off as of September 8, 2004.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Reference Letter from Fr. D_ D_, Pastor
Reference Letter from R_ L_ Department Chair, Allied Medical, Southern Ohio College, undated
Reference Letter from P_ R_ (mother in law), undated
Reference Letter from A_ L_, undated
Criminal Record Response Letter, dated November 3, 2004
Personal Information Release Form dated September 10, 2004
Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation ICO United States v. SK2 D_ J. D_, USN (Applicant), dated February 10, 1998 (5 pages)
Cover Letter from Veterans Service Commission

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     770615 - 770617  COG
         Active: USN                        770617 - 810616  HON
 Inactive: USNR            810617 - 820211  COG
Inactive: USNR (DEP)     820212 - 820301  COG
Active: USN                        820302 - 870322  HON
Active: USN                        870323 - 920520  HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 920521               Date of Discharge: 980605

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 06 00 15 (Does not exclude lost time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 35                          Years Contracted: 4 (17 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SK2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (4)             Behavior: 4.00 (4)                OTA: 4.00 (4.00)
 4.00 (2)                          3.00 (2)                          3.72 (5.00)
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: MUC, NER, GCM(3), NDSM, HSM, SSDR(3), NMCOSR(5), Expert Rifle Medal, Flag Letter of Commendation, Sharpshooter Pistol Ribbon

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACITVE SERVICE, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620150.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

920521:  Reenlisted at Naval Station, Philadelphia, PA for 4 years.
970926:  General Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 80, (3 Specifications): Attempting to steal currency.
Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 81, (3 Specifications):
Conspiracy to commit larceny and violation of a general order.
Charge III: violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, (2 specifications):
Violation of a lawful regulation by wrongfully receiving money in return for awarding contracts to a friend and receiving money in return for awarding contracts to a corporation governed in part by himself.
Charge IV: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121, (9 Specifications):
Larceny of a total value of $9,050.75 and larceny of military property of a value of about $150.00.
Charge V: violation of the UCMJ, Article 123, (2 Specifications):
Intent to defraud, forge signatures as endorsements to purchase orders.
         Findings: to Charge I and all specifications thereunder, guilty. To Charge II and all specifications thereunder, guilty. To specification 1 of Charge III, not guilty and withdrawn, to specification 2 of Charge III guilty, to Charge III, guilty. To Charge IV and all specifications thereunder, guilty. To Charge V and all specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: Confinement for 10 months, fine of $3000.00, reduction to E-1.
         CA 980316: Sentence approved.

971007:  To confinement.

980423:  Applicant’s request for Transfer to the Fleet Reserve/Retired List/Retired Reserve.

980505:  Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston recommended to Chief of Naval Personnel (PERS-83 and PERS-27) that Applicant’s request to transferred to the Fleet Reserve/Retired List/Retired Reserve be denied.
980605:  Released from confinement.

 980605:  DD Form 214: Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of completion of required active service, per authority MILPERSMAN 3620150.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19980605 with a general (under honorable conditions) for completion of required active service (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, but the characterization of service was inequitable (C and D).

Issue 1. Under applicable regulations, separations based on End of Active Obligated Service should be honorable unless a general (under honorable conditions) is warranted based upon the Enlisted Performance Evaluation System. Regulations in effect at the time of the Applicant’s separation indicate a member is eligible for a general discharge only if during the sailor’s current enlistment, the final individual trait average was 1.99 or below. The evidence of record reveals the Applicant’s final individual trait average was 4.0 on the older “4.0” scale and 3.72 on the modern “5.0” scale. Although the Applicant was convicted by general court-martial based on his pleas to a combined 17 specifications of attempts, conspiracy, orders violations, larceny, fraud and forgery, his performance marks warrant an honorable discharge. As such, the Board concluded that the Applicant’s service was inequitably characterized and unanimously voted to change the characterization of service to honorable. Relief granted.

The following if provided for the edification of the Applicant. The NDRB has provided all of the relief possible under applicable regulations. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of naval service, if he desires further review of his case.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 Dec 97 until 26 March 2000, Article 1910-104 (previously 3620150), Separation by Reason of Expiration of Active Obligated Service (EAOS).

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 | 2003_Navy | ND03-00315

    Original file (ND03-00315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of UCMJ Article 134, Wrongfully receive military allowance of about $800.00. Sentence: To be discharged from the naval service with a bad conduct discharge. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00957

    Original file (MD03-00957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00957 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030505. I’m requesting an upgrade on a Bad Conduct Discharge I received back in March of 1990. Sentence: Bad conduct discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00205

    Original file (ND04-00205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00205 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031117. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.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:

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01012

    Original file (ND04-01012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I confronted him one last time and asked him for my money because the check wasn’t at my apartment nor was it in the room. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation; or Article 123, Forgery if adjudged at a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00171

    Original file (ND01-00171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    But yet I think still of my discharge. 961205: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Assistant Secretary of Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. 961219: 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 | 2004 Marine | MD04-00787

    Original file (MD04-00787.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Please take this into consideration when you are making your decision.Applicant)” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00848

    Original file (ND02-00848.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At this time, I am asking for a General Discharge. 880728: Naval Clemency & Parole Board does not grant clemency; restoration denied.881017: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, are affirmed.890328: Special Court Martial Supplemental Order: Article 71(c), UCMJ, having been complied with, bad conduct discharge ordered executed. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01446

    Original file (ND03-01446.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. My discharge was based on two minor/isolated offenses in a 3 year 5 month period of time. The Navy Marine Corps Court of Military Review set aside his Special Court-Martial conviction and sentence on 910308 and returned the case to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for disposition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500253

    Original file (ND0500253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Sentence: Forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month, confinement for 30 days, reduced to E-1.CA action 030306: Sentence approved and ordered executed.030420: Review of Summary court-martial: SJA recommends approval of charge I and the specification thereunder, disapproval of charge II and the specifications thereunder, but approval of the lesser included offense of missing...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500850

    Original file (MD0500850.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of UCMJ Article 91: Specification: In that Lance Corporal M_ (Applicant) with 3rd Intelligence Battalion, III MHG, III MEF, having received a lawful order from Sergeant T_, a noncommissioned officer, to report to Sgt J_, an order which it was his duty to obey, did on board Camp Hansen, willfully disobey the same. Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 (2 Specs): Specification 1: In that Private D_ D. M_ (Applicant), U. S. Marine Corps, 3d Intelligence Battalion, III Marine...