Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500725
Original file (ND0500725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00725

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050317. The Applicant requests his 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 any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20050713. 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:

 “Issue 1: The discharge was improper because I was not properly informed of my rights and the consequences that would result from the proceedings. At that time, I was 19 years old and was having family issues, so I requested to be discharged. I have only been in the service for less than 13 months.

Issue 2: The discharge was inequitable because the superior officer in charge was racially prejudiced. He insinuated that I was lazy and should not be able to work for any type of government agency again. I did not know who to speak to or trust when he spoke those words. His words has rang true for the past 11 years. I planned to be a special education teacher for the city but I am discriminated against when I honestly mention my discharge characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. I am now 30 years old. I have degrees and certificates that I have pursued and accomplished, but I have not produced because of an incident 11 years ago. I was a naïve and angry young man. I am seeking a second chance. Please upgrade my discharge characterization to Honorable.”

 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)
Bachelor of Arts degree, dated May 30, 2003
Associate in Arts degree, dated August 18, 2001
Certificate of qualification as surgical technologist, dated November 17, 1995
Transcript from California State University

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     920828 - 930712  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 930713               Date of Discharge: 940920

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 02 08         Does not exclude lost time
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: SA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NOB                           Behavior: NOB             OTA: NOB

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, SASM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: 20

 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 :

940822:  Applicant to unauthorized absence 1230, 940822.

 940912:  Applicant from unauthorized absence 0034, 940912 (20 days/surrendered).
940912:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence without leave, violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Disobeying a lawful order.
         Award: Forfeiture of $450 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-1. Forfeiture suspended for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.
940912:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The characterization of your service may be Other Than Honorable.
940912:  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. Applicant did not object to separation.
940912:  Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

940923:  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 19940920 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, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety or inequity after a review of Applicant’s case. 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. Despite the servicemember’s record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence) and Article 92 (failure to obey order). There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant willfully disobeyed the order to “move aboard the ship”, thus substantiating the misconduct for which he was separated. Separation under these conditions normally results in characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of 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.

The Applicant alleged that his other than honorable discharge is inequitable because “the superior officer in charge was racially prejudiced”. 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 his contention that his chain of command was racist. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity. The record contains no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s commanding officer or anyone else in the discharge process. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because he was not properly informed of his rights and consequences that would result from the proceedings. The record contains proper documentation initialed and signed by the Applicant acknowledging his discharge may be characterized as other than honorable, waiving his rights to and administrative board, legal representation, right to make a statement, and specifically stating that he did not object to the separation. By waiving his right to an administrative board, the Applicant accepted the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. The Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considered the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. 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 submitted the following documentation; DD-214, Bachelor’s of Arts degree, Associate in Arts degree, certification of qualification as surgical technologist, transcript from California State University. After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct while in the Naval service. 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), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 B. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, (failure to obey order) 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 | 2002_Navy | ND02-00715

    Original file (ND02-00715.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950222: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions [Extracted from case file]. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence the Board found, by a vote of 3-0, the Applicant committed misconduct and his service should be characterized as other than honorable. However, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00732

    Original file (ND04-00732.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.940816: NAVDRUGLAB, San Diego, CA, reported Applicant’s urine sample, received 940810, tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.940819: Medical Evaluation: Applicant not drug dependent, recommend Level II CAAC treatment if retained in the service.940822: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A (2 specs): (1) Wrongfully possess an amount of amphetamine/methamphetamine on 940808, (2) Wrongfully use amphetamines/methamphetamines. 941005: An...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500771

    Original file (ND0500771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.900507: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. 900523: Applicant discharged. 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 she desires further review of her case.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01053

    Original file (ND04-01053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. I am unable to due so due to the type of discharge and reentry code I was given at the time of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00070

    Original file (ND01-00070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :841211: Applicant ordered to active duty for 36 months under the Active Mariner Program.850905: Special Court Martial Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications): Specification 1: Unauthorized absence 0730, 1Jul85 to 1929, 6Jul85 (5 days/surrendered). PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged in absentia on 870717 under other than honorable conditions for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00967

    Original file (ND04-00967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant refused to speak with detailed defense counsel.890906: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00426

    Original file (ND99-00426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Issues (verbatim) (EQUITY ISSUE) His violation of the UCMJ nothwithstanding, this former member opines that his otherwise creditable service period is sufficient to warrant separation under honorable condition.2. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to: DA Military Review Boards Agency Management Information and Support Directorate Armed Forces Reading Room Washington, D.C. 20310-1809The names, and votes of the members of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00288

    Original file (ND01-00288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 910312 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging to both the Sailor and his family members. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00949

    Original file (ND99-00949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct – commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. 900718: 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 900731 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01249

    Original file (ND04-01249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in his characterization of discharge.