Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600039
Original file (ND0600039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-CTOSA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00039

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051004. 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 20060810. 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 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:

“My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated event in 28 months of service with no other adverse action.”

 Documentation
Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19990327 – 19990518               COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19990519             Date of Discharge: 20010405

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 18
         Inactive: None

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

 Age at Entry: 19

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 months extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 80

 Highest Rate: CTSN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3.0 (1)              Behavior: 1.0 (1)                          OTA: 2.67

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): None


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 :

001209:  Virginia Beach Police Department Arrest Report: Applicant charged with grand larceny.

010209:  CTOSN D_ (Applicant)’s civilian court case: On Thursday, 08FEB01 CTOSN D_ (Applicant) was at his arraignment. The public defender had reached an agreement with the prosecuting Commonwealth Attorney before going to the judge. CTOSN D_ (Applicant) was charged with Misdemeanor charge, 30 days in jail. Suspended assuming no violations for one year. Restitution charge. Pay victim $238, Court fees $160.
010323:  NJP for Charge I, violation of UCMJ, Article 121: Larceny and wrongful appropriation.
         Specification: In that Cryptologic Technician (Communications) Seaman P_ J_ D_, did, at Radio Shack, Pembroke Mall, VA, on or about 9 Dec 00, steal money, of a value of (about) $112.00, the property of a co-worker at Radio Shack.
 NJP for Charge II, violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statements.
          Specification 1: SN D_ (Applicant) did at Hutchins Hall, NAVAMPHIB BASE, LCREEK, VA on or about 9 Dec 00 with intent to deceive, voluntarily initiate a telephone call to division LCPO. SN D_ (Applicant) made a voluntary statement that he did not commit larceny, which was false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false.
         Specification 2: SN D_ (Applicant) did at fleet information warfare center on or about 11 Dec 00, with intent to deceive, make to his CPO an official statement during suspect’s rights acknowledgement statement state that he did not commit larceny which was totally false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false.
         Specification 3: SN D_ (Applicant) did at the defense attorney’s office on or about 4JAN01 with the intent to deceive make to N3 division officer an official statement that VA Beach Police Dept did on or about 9 Dec 00 force SN D_ (Applicant) to make a confession was totally false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false.
         Award: Forfeiture of $607.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 6 months), reduction in rank (suspended for 6 months). No indication of appeal in the record.

010327:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense.
010327:  Commanding Officer, Fleet Information Warfare Center, directed the Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense.

010328:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights.
010413:  FLTINFOWARCEN, advised COMNAVPERSCOM that the Applicant was discharged 5 Apr 01 with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “CTOSN D_ (Applicant)’s administrative withdrawal of security clearance, refusal to tell the truth on numerous occasions to his chain of command and disregard for Navy core values honor, courage, and commitment does not make him eligible for continued naval service.”

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20010405 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 records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general characterization of service 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. There is irrefutable evidence that the Applicant’s conduct during his time in the Navy was not honorable. Indeed, the Applicant’s record was marred by a civilian arrest on 20010209 for grand larceny and nonjudicial punishment proceedings on 20010323 for violation of UCMJ Article 121 (Larceny and Wrongful appropriation) and three specification of Article 107 (False official statement). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls well below that required for an honorable characterization of service. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate; therefore relief is denied.

The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in “28 months of service with no other adverse action.” Applicable regulations require that a member’s characterization of service be based upon the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment. However, 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. The Applicant’s “isolated event” resulted in violations of Article 107 and 121. These are serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized under Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial (B). Separation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant was properly notified, processed and discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the U.S. Navy. Therefore, the Board concluded that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as issued. 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 post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to the 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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, 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 107 False official statements and Article 121 Larceny and Wrongful appropriation.

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500648

    Original file (ND0500648.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). Issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (Civilian Counsel):“Whether the characterization of discharge was warranted given the circumstances of the offense charge and considering the entire service member’s exemplary record during the period of his enlistment. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 107, 108 and 121 are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01277

    Original file (ND04-01277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01277 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040809. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501306

    Original file (ND0501306.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). I recommend that he be separated from the United States Navy with an Other Than Honorable discharge.”011115: COMSUBGRU TWO directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense. The Applicant states, “after 3 years of good service I made a mistake.” Despite a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00883

    Original file (MD03-00883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Document 2 contains the summarized testimony of the numerous witnesses who testified regarding good military character on respondent’s behalf and it also contains the impartial opinion of the board who evaluated all of the evidence from both sides and made a decision to recommend retention.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character reference from GySgt, dated March 6, 2003 Thirteen pages from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600147

    Original file (ND0600147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). 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 | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500830

    Original file (ND0500830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19910513 - 19910930 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19911001...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600564

    Original file (ND0600564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.040727: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions).040802: Applicant found physically qualified for separation.040803: Applicant advised of rights and having...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700249

    Original file (ND0700249.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge VI: violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (15 Specs) Specification 1: Solicited AO2 V_ to wrongfully wear NMCAM Medal. 20030131: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. The Board did so.]

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600951

    Original file (ND0600951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Equity – Post service Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)One page from the Applicant’s Service RecordApplicant’s Statement, (no signature and no date) (2 pgs) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600218

    Original file (ND0600218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051116. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) or uncharacterized. 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.