Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501301
Original file (ND0501301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


ex-AD2, USN
Docket No. ND05-01301

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050727. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests 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 20060413. 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 and reason for discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense .
PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application:

“I feel that someone else besides HM-15 should take a look at the records of former AD2 R_(Applicant). He stood for all that is the Navy. He loved his country, Navy, and family probably in that order.”

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal certificate, dtd June 15, 2003
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal certificate, dtd December 1, 2000
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal certificate, dtd February 15, 2003
Good Conduct Award certificate, dtd September 5, 2000
Command Fifth Fleet citation to Applicant from May to June 1999

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19950214 - 19950319      COG
          Active: USN      19950320 - 20001031      HON
                  USN      20001101 - 20031125      HON
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 20031126             Date of Discharge: 20041119

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 11 24
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 27

 Years Contracted: 6

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 51

 Highest Rate: AD2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (1)                      Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2 .29

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal(3), Navy Unit Commendation(1), Navy “E” Ribbon(2), Good Conduct Medal(2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal(1), Armed Forces Service Medal(1), Sea Service Deployment Ribbon(3), National Defense Service Medal(2) Navy/Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon(4), NATO Medal(1), Pistol Marksmanship,(1), Kosovo Campaign Medal(1), Letter of Commendation(1)


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) /MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031126:  Reenlisted this date for a term of 6 years.
041026:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 128, Assault.
         Date of Offense: 041009
         Award: Forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-4 (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

041116:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of commission of a serious offense. Applicant notified that if separation is approved the least favorable characterization of service possible is under other than honorable conditions.
041116:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
041119:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN 1910-142.

Service Record contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20041119 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under 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 (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

 By regulation, a discharge shall be deemed proper, unless it is determined that an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion has substantially prejudiced the rights of the Applicant. The Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offenes. A review of the Applicant’s service record convinced the Board that a preponderance of evidence exists to support the Applicant’s basis for separation by virtue of his NJP on 20041026 for UCMJ Article 128, assault. The record further reveals that the Applicant was properly processed and notified for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense on 20041116 with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions. On the same day, the Applicant waived all of his rights. On 20041119, the Applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Based upon the above review, the Board unanimously concluded that the Applicant’s discharge processing was in substantial compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. Despite the Applicant’s contentions, The Board could find no error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion that might afford the Applicant relief. Thus, the Board concluded that relief is not warranted.

Regulations require that a Sailor’s characterization of service be based upon the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment. Furthermore, there are circumstances where conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single adverse incident may form the basis of characterization for a Sailor’s overall service. The incident need not result in formal punishment to be properly used to characterize a Sailor’s service. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard for acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general (under 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for a violation of UCMJ Articles 128, assault. The Applicant’s misconduct reflects his failure to meet the minimum standards required for an honorable discharge. Relief is not warranted.

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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.

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 .

E. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500906

    Original file (ND0500906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501402

    Original file (ND0501402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant provided two letters of recommendation from his college professors as documentation of post-service accomplishments. 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600038

    Original file (ND0600038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the absence of a complete summary of service and discharge package, the Board presumed that the Applicant violated his retention warning dated 20041125 and that the Applicant was properly notified, processed, and discharged in accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501075

    Original file (ND0501075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    J_ L. H_ Jr. (Applicant)” Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency i.e. NJP on 15 Aug 2001, for violation of UCMJ, Article 134 (communicating a threat), and NJP 09 May 2001, for violations of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), Article 107 (false official statement), and Article 134 (false pass), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020729: Applicant notified of intended...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500705

    Original file (ND0500705.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500595

    Original file (ND0500595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION In the Applicant’s case, although the record contains scant evidence of the Applicant’s misconduct, the presumption of regularity permitted the Board to conclude the Navy’s actions in discharging the Applicant were proper and equitable.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501302

    Original file (ND0501302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in Washington, DC at the Washington Navy Yard and that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation The Applicant submitted the following documentation for the Board’s consideration in addition to the service and medical record:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600465

    Original file (ND0600465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Decisional Issues Equity -- Personal family problems contributed to misconduct Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1) (2)Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) (2) Postal Operations Course Diploma from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501014

    Original file (ND0501014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from Applicant dtd September 13, 2005 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4 and 1) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19860224 – 19860303 COG Active: USN 19860304 – 19900301 HONActive: USN 19900302 – 19941201 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19941202 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500768

    Original file (ND0500768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues The Applicant’s American Legion Representative submitted the following three equity issues on the date of the hearing. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20020813 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the...