Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500949
Original file (ND0500949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-SR, USN
Docket No. ND05-00949

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050505. The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060209. 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 characterization of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain as a bad conduct discharge by reason of court-martial conviction.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached document/letter:

“Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is R_ K. W_ social security # xxx-xx-xxxx. I was an active duty member of the U.S. Navy from 2000 Jan 11 until 2003 October 14. I was stationed on the USS Camden for 1 year 11 months and 10 days. In June 2002 I was court-martial zed, where I pleaded guilty for assault on SR M_ T. M_. Since my discharge out of the Navy I have been trying to better myself as a young man. I have been a security guard at Domino Sugar Refinery for the past two years, and also have been certified in Homeland Security. I have also spent numerous hours with EM1 S_ S_ in helping him get new recruits to join the navy, Furthermore, I have done volunteer tutoring in mathematics for S_ T. R_ High School here in New Orleans.

The reason I have requested this review of my discharge is because of the mistake I made in January 2002 has hindered me in many facades of my life. Recently I was hired with Lockheed Martin Corp at the NASA Center in New Orleans. One week before my first day with Lockheed, I was given a call from the personnel manager. She explained to me because of my discharge it would enable me from getting a security clearance, which as a requirement on NASA’s facility to work there. In January 2002 I was a young kid that was involved in pulling a very stupid prank, that I wish would have never happened.

In closing I would like to thank this board for taking the time out to review my case. Hopefully you can see that I have suffered enough, over a harmful prank that should’ve never occurred. I believe that I deserve another chance to serve my country; instead of allowing this situation to overcast me for the rest of my life. I honestly enjoyed my time in the Navy and the values that were instilled into me. My experience molded me into being the man that I am today. Hopefully one day I will have another chance to serve again and the board will consider giving me a better chance in getting better job opportunities.

Thank you,

R_ K. W_ [Applicant]”

Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Special Court-Martial report of results, dated June 04, 2002
Character reference letter from G_ A_, MS1 (AW), USN, Brig Counselor, dated June 02, 2002
Brig detainee information card, dated March 09, 2002
Criminal record report dated March 29, 2005 (2 pgs)
Character reference letter from S_ P. S_
Employer reference letter from H_ T_, dated April 11, 2005
Letter of Appreciation from Mr. D. L. W_, dated April 13, 2005
Welcome letter from C_ B_, Human Resources, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, dated October 28, 2004
Welcome letter from R_ J. S_, President and CEO, Lockheed Martin
Birth Certificate of Applicant
Evaluation Report & Counseling Record for the period of 01 Jan 21 through 01 Jul 15

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19990628 – 19991228               ELS
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20000110                                    COG
          Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20000111             Date of Discharge: 20031014

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 03 06 23
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: none
         Confinement:              90 days

 Age at Entry: 18

Years Contracted: 4

Education Level: 10 (GED)                 AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: SN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.0 (3)              Behavior: 2.3 (3)                 OTA: 2 .50 (3)

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy “E” Ribbon, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.


Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):
BAD CONDUCT/COURT MARTIAL, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 5815-010 (formerly 3640420).
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000110:  Enlistment waiver approved for DEP discharge and non-minor misdemeanors (theft of goods, simple battery and possession of marijuana).

000819:  Applicant unauthorized absent from 0900 until 1300 and missed ship movement on 000819.

000921:  NJP for violations of UCMJ, Article 86 (unauthorized absence) and Article 87 (missing ship’s movement through neglect).
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
010120:  NJP for violations of UCMJ, Article 89 (disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, 5 specs), Article 90 (failure to obey a lawful order, 2 specs), Article 91 (disrespect toward a chief petty officer, 2 specs), and Article 107 (false official statement).
         Award: Forfeiture of $521 per month for 1 month (suspended for 6 months), restriction and extra duty for 30 days, reduction to E-2 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

 020329:  Applicant to Pre-trial confinement on 020329.

020604:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 117 (provoking speech and gestures, 2 specifications).
         Specification 1: Wrongful use of provoking words (“bitch” and “other fighting word”) toward Seaman Recruit M_ T. M_.
         Specification 2: Wrongful use of provoking gestures (slapping the bill of cover and shadow boxing) toward Seaman Recruit M_ T. M_.
         Charge II: Violation of the UMCJ, Article 128 (assault). Pointing a dangerous weapon, a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm toward Seaman Recruit M_ T. M_.
         Charge III: Violation of the UMCJ, Article 134 (communicating a threat). Wrongfully communicate a threat to injure Seaman Recruit M_ T. M_, by saying “I could fuck you up”.
Plea and findings to charge I specification I and II and charge III: Not guilty/withdrawn
Plea and findings to charge II: Guilty excepting the language ”a dangerous weapon, a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm”; substituting the words “an unloaded firearm”.
To the excepted language: Not guilty
To the substituted language: Guilty
         Sentence: Confinement for 90 days, reduction to E-1, Bad Conduct discharge.
         CA 020904: The sentence approved and ordered executed, except for bad conduct discharge.
        
020609:  From confinement, restored to full duty (71 days).

021002:  Applicant to appellate leave.

030516:  NMCCCA: The finding of guilty and sentence, as approved on review, is affirmed.

030805:  Applicant failed to petition for appellate review.
031009:  SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, bad conduct discharge ordered executed.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged in absentia on 20031014 with a bad conduct discharge, the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial. Both the convening and appellate review authorities subsequently approved the sentence (A and B). After a thorough review of all available records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were insufficient to merit clemency (C).

With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined these factors insufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded. Clemency is not warranted and the sentence awarded by the court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Relief denied.

 The Applicant stated that an upgrade to his discharge would help him obtain more favorable employment. T he Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the purpose of enhancing medical, housing, employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. This issue does not merit relief.

 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 the 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 provided four character reference letters, a police record check, and two letters from Lockheed Martin verifying his initial acceptance for employment. These letters also verified the Applicant’s tutoring assistance at Sara T. Reed High School, assistance to the local Navy recruiter, police involvement with the New Orleans/Jefferson Parrish police, and his employment as a security guard for Domino Sugar. After careful consideration, the Board concluded the Applicant’s post-service achievements do not merit clemency and have been insufficient to mitigate his misconduct by 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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until 8 Sep 2004, Article 5815-010 (formerly 3640420), Executing a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.

B. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 128 (assault) and 134 (communicating a threat)
C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 205(2), Jurisdictional Limitations Authority for Review of Discharges

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00814

    Original file (MD03-00814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The issue presented in this Application is whether or not my Bad Conduct Discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps, which was adjudged at a special court martial on 8 August 1990, should be upgraded to Honorable. However, at the time I requested relief, my discharge had recently been adjudged and the Board properly found that I failed to introduce new evidence of sufficient merit to extenuate, mitigate, or excuse the misconduct of my record, which was a 306 day unauthorized absence.It has how...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500619

    Original file (ND0500619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 inequitable (B, C, and D).The Applicant contends that his discharge was a penalty that was disproportionate to the offense for which he was court-martialed, especially when he had no knowledge of the incident for which charges were preferred. The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501430

    Original file (ND0501430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01430 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050830. “The discharge was improper because I was coerced by my attorney to say I did steal money from the victim. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 – failure to obey general order, Article 121 – larceny of value more than $100, Article 91...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00882

    Original file (ND04-00882.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The incident which caused me to received the Other than Honorable Discharge was based on a an incident in which during the summer of 1994, I had sexual intercourse with a civilian female and had to go to the Navy Training Center Medical for treatment of an Sexual Transmitted Disease. You may reach me at (phone number deleted).Sincerely,J_ M_ S_ (Applicant) (social security...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00391

    Original file (ND03-00391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030107. The Applicant requests that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Approximately two months after reporting to my new duty station, NAS JRB New Orleans, Louisiana, my department was informed of the situation.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501389

    Original file (MD0501389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sep. Board. 040901: 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, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.040917: Applicant from confinement. In the course of reviewing the Applicant’s service record, transcript of the administrative discharge...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100008069

    Original file (AR20100008069.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 18 December 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500660

    Original file (MD0500660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD05-00660 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050302. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19970305 - 19970427 COG Active: USMC 19970428 - 20001003 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 20001004 Date of Discharge: 20021113 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 10 (Does not exclude lost...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

    Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500547

    Original file (MD0500547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Seventy-seven pages from Applicant’s service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USMCR(J) 910530 - 910922 COG Active: USMC 910923 -...