Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600488
Original file (ND0600488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


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

ex-LT., USNR
Docket No. ND06-00488

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20060208 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “ Other (FBC) . ” 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 20061206 . 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 .




PART I - ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Decisional Issues :

Equity: Command misconduct.
Equity : Inadequate counsel .
Documents submitted by the Applicant:
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
 Letter from Applicant to NCPB with enclosures (A) thru (N) dtd January 20, 2006

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         ARNG               19900723 - 19920125     
         A RNG               19950217 - 19971201      
         USNR              19971202 - 20030831      HON

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Affiliation : 20031001             Date of Discharge: 20050802

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Inactive: 01 10 01

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

Age at Entry: 30                                    Years Contracted: 8               

Education Level: Bachelor                           Highest Grade : L T

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 . 0 ( 1 )     Behavior: 1 .0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2 . 17

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): NC, NAM, (2 nd ), Combat Action Ribbon, Army Achievement Medal, ARCOM, Air Force Achievement Medal, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, NUC, CG MUC, Navy MUC, Armed Forces Expeditionary, National Defense Service Medal (2 nd ), AF Training Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Ribbon, Expert Pistol , Army NCO Ribbon, Humanitarian Service Medal, Battle “E”, SSR, NATO Medal, MOVSM (2), SWMDO Pin, NPJ Badge, Air Assault Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Sharpshooter (Rifle) .


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

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1920-190 .
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

031001:  Applicant joined 4th Medical Battalion, 4th Force Service Support Group, Marine Forces Reserve, San Diego, CA.

040506:  Applicant submitted Transfer to IRR request to CO, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center. Applicant had returned to France in order to live near his family and cannot easily travel to a drill site. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

040605:  CO, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, denied Applicant’s request to transfer to Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) pending resolution of several administrative issues concerning the Applicant. Applicant must continue to drill or request authorized absence. Action will be taken upon notification from unit that a final decision has been made in the issues in question. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

040607:  U.S. Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division initiated investigation into Applicant’s alleged travel fraud. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

040618:  Applicant request ed authorized absence for a period of 12 months to CO, 4th Medical Battalion . [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

041115:  U.S. Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division closed investigation. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

050222:  Commanding Officer, 4th Medical Battalion, requested Show Cause for Retention. The CO requested that the Applicant be administratively separated under other than honorable condition by reason of unsatisfactory drill participation in the U.S. Naval Reserve. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

050511:  CO, NAVMARCORRESCEN, transferred Applicant to IRR (NRPC) due to inability to maintain satisfactory drill attendance. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

050517:  Commander, Navy Personnel Command, notified Applicant of administrative show cause proceedings for the following:
 a. Misconduct – commission of a military or civilian offense, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more; specifically,
                            (1) Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, unauthorized absence;
                           (2) Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order or regulation;
                           (3) Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107 , false official statements;
                           (4) Violation of the UCMJ, Article 132, fraud; and
                           (5) Violation of UCMJ, Article 133, conduct unbecoming an officer.
                  b. Substandard performance of duty; specifically,
                            (1) Failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in your grade and
                           (2) Failure to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment.
 The Applicant was notified that the least favorable characterization of service may be recommended in his case is Other Than Honorable. The Applicant advised that he may tender a qualified resignation request in lieu of administrative separation. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

050624:  Applicant submitted Resignation of Commission to Navy Personnel Command, PERS 4834. Applicant understood that if resignation is accepted, he shal l subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge from the Naval Service.

050704:  Applicant submitted Acknowledgement of Rights to Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS 4834D). Applicant desired to tender resignation (dated 050624) and waive right to a Board of Inquiry. [Extracted from documents submitted by Applicant.]

 U NDATED :         Commander, Navy Personnel Command, recommended approval of the Applicant ’s qualified resignation request and separate d him with a general discharge (se paration code BKM, misconduct).

050802:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M&RA) approved the request.

 050818 :  Commander, Navy Personnel Command , informed the Applicant that the Secretary of the Navy, acting for the President, discharged him from the United States Navy Reserve effective 050802 with a General Discharge.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20050802 by reason of misconduct (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). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

Equity – Command misconduct: The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because his “former unit sought retribution for [his] open participation in an IG investigation which looked poorly upon the unit’s command element.”

While the Applicant may feel that the underlying cause for his separation was command retribution, the record clearly reflects his misconduct, which demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record shows that the Applicant was notified on 20050517 of administrative show cause proceedings for misconduct due to commission of military offenses; specifically, violation of UCMJ Article 86 Unauthorized absence, Article 92 Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation, Article 107 False official statements, Article 132 Fraud, and Article 133 conduct unbecoming an officer. Violation of Articles 92, 107, and 132 are serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized under Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial and typically warrants a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. On 20050704, the Applicant acknowledged the notification to show cause for retention, waived his right to a Board of Inquiry, and tendered his qualified resignation. This Board found no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, which suggest s a causal relationship between the IG investigation and command decision to administratively separate the Applicant. The government enjoys the presumption of regularity (E). In the absence of contradictory evidence, the Board concluded that the government’s agents acted in good faith, proceeded within the bounds of the law, and conformed their behavior to appropriate standards during the Applicant’s Naval service and subsequent administrative processing. The Board advises the Applicant that he bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. The Applicant’s statements alone do not provide sufficient basis to grant relief. Relief denied.

Equity – Inadequate counsel: The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because “counsel never advised me that a misconduct separation code was a possible outcome.”

On 20050517, Commander, Navy Personnel Command, notified the Applicant that administrative action requiring him to show cause had been initiated in accordance with SECNAVINST 1920.6B. In this notification, the Applicant was informed that the reasons for administrative action were misconduct and substandard performance of duty. The Applicant was further notified that he may exercise his right to tender a qualified resignation request in lieu of administrative separation. Regulations governing resignation stipulate only that the favorable characterization of service for a qualified resignation is General (Under Honorable Conditions). In the Applicant’s case, this does not affect the reason for discharge.

Under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of the Applicant's discharge, this Board will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. A review of the Applicant’s records show that the reason for initiating administrative processing procedures was the Applicant’s misconduct – commission of a military or civilian offense, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by confinement of six months or more and substandard performance of duty. The Board concluded that while the qualified resignation addressed the character of service the Applicant would receive, the narrative reason for separation remained as notified. Since no other Narrative Reason for Separation could more clearly describe why the Applicant was discharged, changing it would be inappropriate. Relief on this basis is denied.

The Applicant is advised that the Board has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into any of the Armed Forces. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Reenlistment policy of the Naval service is promulgated by the Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, 5722 Integrity Drive, Bldg 784, Millington, TN 38054. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. Since these issues do not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief, relief on this basis 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. 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 Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Article 1920-190, Types of Resignation by Officers and Article 1920-200 Resignation of an Officer.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B, Administrative Separation of Officers.
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 | ND0501549

    Original file (ND0501549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND05-01549 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050920. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 930702: Chief of Naval Personnel recommended to Secretary of the Navy approval of Applicant’s request for resignation with a general character of service.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001866

    Original file (MD1001866.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Jul 2009, the Applicant submitted a request to the Secretary of the Navy, via Commandant of the Marine Corps, for resignation of his commission warrant in the Marine Corps in lieu of processing for administrative separation for cause. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can review and make determinations on these issues.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, request for resignation, and the...

  • 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01301

    Original file (ND04-01301.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700229

    Original file (ND0700229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86 [Absent without leave (3 specs)], Article 92 (Failure to Obey Lawful Order) and Article 132 [Fraud against the United States (3 specs)] during his enlistment contract. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700181

    Original file (ND0700181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Incident occurring May-July 2004)Awarded - Written Reprimand.20041222: LTR of Reprimand issued to Applicant. Officer administrative separationDischarge Process Report of Misconduct: 20050121 Show Cause Recommendation: Applicant Response: ELECTECTED TO NOT SUBMIT COMMENTS Endorsing Recommendation: CONCUR WITH COMMANDING OFFICERdate: 20050308 Show Cause Decision: CNPCdate: 20050502 Applicant Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Applicant Election: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Board of Inquiry: NONE CNPC...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600686

    Original file (ND0600686.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct - commission of a serious offense, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100, concerning a change in the characterization of Naval service, if he desires further review of his case. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501120

    Original file (MD0501120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This letter and supporting documentation is my personal request for a review of my discharge issued by the United States Marine Corps, though the Secretary of the Navy, on 15 October 2003. While 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401349

    Original file (ND1401349.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. On the contrary, the...

  • 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.]