Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500945
Original file (ND0500945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-BMSN, USN
Docket No. ND05-00945

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050511. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.
In the acknowledgement letter the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15 year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing in the Washington, DC area. The Applicant did not respond.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20051102. After a thorough review of the 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 a trial by court-martial .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 No issues were submitted by the Applicant.
Documentation
In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Reference ltr from V_ L_, Account Executive, WWWB, dtd March 22, 2005 (unsigned)
Character reference ltr from A. P_ H_, Sr., dtd April 4, 2005
Reference ltr from S_ F_, Queen City Services, dtd April 1, 2005
Character reference ltr from B_ N_, Tiffany & Co., undtd
Reference ltr from L_ M_, dtd March 21, 2005
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Cover letter from Mecklenburg County Veterans Service Officer S_ J_, dtd May 4, 2005 (2)

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: None
         Active: USN      19730621 - 19760622      HON
         USN     19760623 - 19770814      HON
         USN     19770815 - 19841115      HON
         USN     19841116 - 19890608      HON

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19890609             Date of Discharge: 19920709

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 01 01
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 42

 Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: NA*

 Highest Rate: BM2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.7 (4)                       Behavior: 3.9 (4)                 OTA: 3.7

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (3), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal (2), Navy Expeditionary Medal (Lebanon), Meritorious Unit Commendation (2), Battle “E” Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal (2)
*Not Available


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

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ separation in lieu of trial by court martial, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630650.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

890609:  Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.

910513:  Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. [Extracted from Medical Board Report dated 911031.]

911031:  Medical Board referred Applicant’s case to departmental review recommending a second period of limited duty for 6 months.
 Medical Board Report: “...The member was well until he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 13 May 1991 in which he fractured his left fourth and fifth ribs and also had a distal third clavicle fracture. The member has been treated with a sling and non-steroidal medications... Diagnoses: (1) Left rib fractures, and (2) left clavicle fracture. It is the opinion of the Medical Board that the member is fit for limited duty... It is anticipated that the member will return to full duty within the prescribed period.” The Medical Board Report coversheet indicated the Applicant was not pending disciplinary action or involuntary separation.
920709:  Applicant administratively reduced to paygrade E-3 due to separation in lieu of trial by court martial.

 920709:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by separation in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

Service Record did not contain the Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19920709 in lieu of a trial by court-martial (A) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. 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 (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (D).

 Under the presumption of regularity, the Board presumed the Applicant requested discharge to escape trial by court-martial, had the elements of the offense(s) for which he was charged fully explained by counsel, that he was guilty of the offense(s) and that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions. Neither the evidence of record nor the documentation provided by the Applicant demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

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 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 post-service documentation for the Board to consider. Relief denied.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. The Applicant was evaluated by a medical board on 19911031. The board recommended a second limited duty period of six months with the anticipation that the Applicant would return to full duty within the required period. There is no indication in the record that the Applicant was processed for a Physical Evaluation Board or that the Applicant was a candidate for a disability-based separation. However, even if the Applicant would have been otherwise eligible for a medical-related separation, DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. SECNAVINST 1850.4C stipulates that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons.

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), effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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

 C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .


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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01082

    Original file (ND04-01082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01082 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040622. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION “After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current Under Other Than Honorable Conditions...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00863

    Original file (ND99-00863.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SMSN, USN Docket No. ND99-00863 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990611, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Relief to a fully Honorable discharge is, however, not warranted.The applicant’s second issue states: “I have been very involved in the Children’s Ministry at my Church and in Latino Affairs at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00347

    Original file (ND02-00347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, the FSM request to have his discharge upgraded from Other Than Honorable (OTH) to General Under Honorable Conditions.As the FSM service organization, it is our contention that the OTH discharge awarded to the FSM is unjust due to the untimely persecution of the FSM. Issue 2: Each Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01045

    Original file (ND01-01045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01045 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010806, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Record of trial returned to Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court, which may order a rehearing on the affected Charge and the sentence, or dismiss that Charge and reassess the sentence based on the remaining findings of guilty.900522: NMCCMR: Record of trial returned to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00043

    Original file (ND02-00043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00043 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 011004, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, or entry level separation or uncharacterized, to include changing the reenlistment code. Pt denied any symptoms of depression or history of suicidal/homicidal ideation. The Board determined that the applicant’s post service documentation did not sufficiently demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00839

    Original file (ND99-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Follow up 2 mo for LIMDU re-eval.910715: Ortho: S: Healing left tibia/fibula fracture. In the applicant’s issues 2 and 3, the Board found no evidence that the Navy mishandled the applicant’s injury. The Board disagrees with the applicant’s statement that “since my discharge resulted ultimately from my medical condition, I should have been honorably discharged for medical reasons.” The applicant was discharged for his unauthorized absence of 53 days in lieu of trial by court martial, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01033

    Original file (ND03-01033.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01033 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. 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 administration. I have over 12 years of exemplary service prior to this incident including the awards of two Navy Achievement Medals.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600568

    Original file (ND0600568.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record, dtd 970509 to 980213]. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01232

    Original file (ND04-01232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01232 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040728. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Additional charge: Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 112a: On active duty, did, at or near National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, on or about 28 April 2003, wrongfully use cocaine.031110: Applicant requested an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500423

    Original file (ND0500423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-00423 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050111. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The NDRB has no authority to provided additional review of this case since Applicant’s discharge occurred more than 15 years ago.