Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600913
Original file (ND0600913.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LT, USN
Docket No. ND06-00913

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060628 . 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 20070329 . 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 commission of serious offense .

PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION


Decisional Issues
Equity: Characterization of service not warranted by overall service record
         Post-service equity mitigates characterization of service

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 for period ending August 31, 1998 (Service 7) (2)
Report of Separation and Record of Service Army National Guard of Virginia (2)
Applicant’s DD Form 214 for period ending June 1, 2004 (Service 4)
Letter from Congressman R_ B_, dtd June 15, 2006
 Applicant Letter, dtd Ju ly 24, 2006
 Army Commendation Medal Certificate
 Applicant Evaluation Report for period June 2004 – September 2004 (2 pages)
Applicant Evaluation Report for period August 2005 – March 2006 (2 pages)


PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

          Inactive: USNR ( NROTC )   19840815 - 19881217       COG
          Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Commission: 19881218              Date of Discharge: 19980831

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 9 0 8 1 4
         Inactive: None

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

Age at Commission: 2 3

Type of Commission: Regular (Indefinite)
Education Level: 16                                  Degree : Bachelor

Highest Grade: LT
Applicant ’s Fitness Reports were available to the Board for review.
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (3), Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Navy “E” Ribbon, USCG Unit Commendation, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2), Navy Reserve Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Armed Forces Service Medal, USCG Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy Achievement Medal


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE , authority: SECNAVINST 1920.6A .
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

881218 :  Applicant commissioned as an E nsign in the United States Navy.
901218 :  Applicant promoted to the grade of L ieutenant (junior grade).

930101:  Applicant promoted to the grade of L ieutenant .
970724 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 : On 970630 f ail to obey a lawful general regulation, Department of Defense Regulation 5500.7-R, dated 30 August 1993, Joint Ethic Regulation, for the wrongful use of a government communications system by sending obscene email to M_ S_ .
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 133 : Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman on 970630 by sending obscene email to M_ S_, to the disgrace of the armed forces .
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 : On 970630 communicate d i ndecent language to M_ S_.
         Award: Punitive letter of reprimand. No t appealed.

970724:  Applicant served with Punitive Letter of Reprimand by Commander, Regional Support Group, Norfolk.
970805 :  Applicant’s submitted statement for inclusion in service record regarding Punitive Letter of Reprimand .

970805:  Commander, Regional Support Group, Norfolk, forwarded Report of Nonjudicial Punishment to Chief of Naval Personnel, recommending that Applicant be required to show cause for retention in the naval service.

971107:  Chief of Naval Personnel notified Applicant of requirement to show cause.
         [Extracted from Chief of Naval Personnel recommendation to Secretary of the Navy, dated 980224.]

980109:  Applicant submitted qualified resignation in lieu of further show cause proceedings.
          [Extracted from Chief of Naval Personnel recommendation to Secretary of the Navy, dated 980224.]
980224 :  Chief of Naval Personnel recommended t hat Secretary of the Navy accept A pplicant’s qualified resignation request and that Applicant be separated with a characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions) and a separation code of BKQ, misconduct – commission of a serious offense.

980 310 :  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s qualified resignation request and discharge by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense with a characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Service Record Book contains a partial Administrative Discharge package.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19980831 by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense (A) 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 dis charge was proper and equitable (B and C). The Board presumed regularity in the con duct of governmental affairs (D).
The record demonstrates that the Applicant committed the misconduct for which he was ultimately separated. The Applicant acknowledged at the time committing the misconduct, and does not deny it to the NDRB. The decision to require the Applicant to show cause for retention as a result of his misconduct is not punishment, nor is characterization of service. T herefore , the Applicant was not exposed to double jeopardy nor punished more than once for his misconduct. The decision that Applicant should be required to show cause was not within the purview of his local command, though it did recommend that such action be taken. Therefore, the mere fact that the administrative processing of the Applicant’s case from imposition of NJP to date of discharge took approximately one year is, of itself, not relevant to the severity of the Applicant’s offense. The record indicates that proper procedures were followed in Applicant’s case, and the Board found no impropriety in the decision to accept the Applicant’s own tendering of a qualified resignation , which by definition acknowledged the possibility of a characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) . Relief is not warranted.

Regarding characterization of se rvice, a general 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. The Applicant’s service was marred by a nonjudicial punishment proceeding for violations of Articles 92, 133 and 134 of the UCMJ. The NDRB advises the Applicant that certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s misconduct is considered serious, for which dismissal is authorized if adjudged at a general court-martial. The gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct is not only enhanced by his status as an officer, but further aggravated by its unseemly nature and tendency to draw disgrace and ridicule upon himself and the naval service. Relief is not warranted.

The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. 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. 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 provided evidence of his commendable performance and honorable service in the Army National Guard. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge under review was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge. 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 additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 20 04, 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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction 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 Instruction 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00588

    Original file (ND01-00588.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00588 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010326, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. As explained in Enclosure 2, her Application for Correction before the Board of Correction of Naval Records, she was discharged based upon her perceived over familiarity with an enlisted subordinate while stationed at NAS Adak, Alaska. The summary of service clearly documents that a commission of a serious offense was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00148

    Original file (ND99-00148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00148 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My offer to submit a new sample for analysis when I was informed of the results of the 3 August 1991 analysis vas denied.

  • 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 | MD0501538

    Original file (MD0501538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events : 980202: Applicant appointed as a Warrant Officer in the United States Marine Corps.980727: NOTIFICATION OF ARTICLE 15, UCMJ, HEARING from Commanding General, 2d Force Service Support Group to the Applicant. The Applicant understands that he could be administratively separated from the U.S. Marine Corps with an other than honorable (characterization of service) discharge based on the findings and recommendations of a Board of Inquiry...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501051

    Original file (ND0501051.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950414: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Secretary of the Navy approval of Applicant’s qualified resignation request for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in lieu of further administrative show cause proceedings. When the service of an officer of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. The record documents that this resignation request followed the Chief of Naval Personnel’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600270

    Original file (ND0600270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specification 2: On or about 8904xx, on board USS EMORY S. LAND (AS-39), knowingly fraternize with HM1 J_ K. T_, USN, on terms of military equality by asking her to be his social companion.Specification 3: On or about 8904xx, on board USS EMORY S. LAND (AS-39), wrongfully communicate a threat to HM1 J_ K. T_, USN, to expose private information about her.Additional Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 92: From on or about 8901xx to 8906xx violate a general regulation, to wit: Article 1131,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00751

    Original file (MD01-00751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's representative requested that the reason for separation be change to "Secretarial Authority". Dear members of the board: The following issues are the reasons my discharge should be upgraded from a general discharge to an honorable discharge. Additionally, advised applicant is submitting a letter of resignation and requested leave awaiting separation.990730: Applicant tendered a resignation of commission in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00080

    Original file (ND02-00080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    910814: CO, NAVHOSP Portsmouth, reported Applicant's NJP to BUPERS.910719: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge by reason of substandard performance of duty and misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses as evidenced by CO's NJP on 18 Jun 91 and the characterization of service may be under other than honorable conditions.910722: Applicant advised of her rights and having elected having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected the right...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00608

    Original file (MD04-00608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00608 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040225. “I would like the Board to review my reentry code. I would like the Review board to review my reentry code and upgrade it so that I may reenlist.

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00058

    Original file (MD03-00058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00058 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20020930, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. ISSUE ONE My discharge was improper because I was awarded an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS) effective 21 Nov 1983 until 12 Dec 1999 establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine...