Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601057

Original file (ND0601057.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN
ND06-01057

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request:

Application Received:                               20 0 60611
         Characterization of Service:
         Reason for Discharge:                      COURT MARTIAL
         Discharge Authority:                       MILPERSMAN 3640420
         Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge:    ALAMEDA CA

Applicant’s Request:
         Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:
         Review Requested:
         Representation:                            VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE
         Issues (as summarized by NDRB):          1. Personal problems i.e. family was the cause for his in service
misconduct.
2 . Requesting upgrade for Employment enhancement.



Decision:

Date of Decision:                                            20 070706
Location of Board:                                  Washington D.C.
Complete Service Record:
Complete Medical Record:
Complete Discharge Package:

Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:
(BCD only) The Board found that clemency was:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Summary of Service :

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)                                19 8 10519-19 8 10528
Active:                                    NONE
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment:                                 19 8 10529
Years Contracted :                                   ;
Date of Discharge:                                  19920317 (Commenced appellate leave on 19830419)
Length of Service:                                  10 Yrs 10 Mos 15 Days ^{Does not exclude lost time, if any.}
Time Lost During This Period:                      16 9
Days Unauthorized Absence:                         88
Days Confinement:                                   81

Education Level:
Age at this Enlistment:
AFQT:                                                 38
Highest Rate/Rank:                                   AR

Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
Performance :                                         2.8 (2)
Behavior :                                            2.8 (2)
OTA :                                                   3.0
Extracted from:
Applicant’s Supporting Documents Other:

Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214):
NONE

Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

19810915 :        NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
         Article 86: (3 specifications), Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 for 1 month.
         No indication of appeal in the record.

19820124 :        NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
         Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 19811130 to 19811224.
         Award: Forfeiture of $150 for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 14 days.
         No indication of appeal in the record.

19820805:        Special Court-Martial.
         Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 .
         Specification: Unauthorized absence from 19820310 to 19820314 and 19820423 to 19820604 and 10 specification of missing restricted muster between 19820618 and 19820620 .
         Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87: Missing movement on 19820427.
         Finding: Not found in record.
         Sentence: Confinement for 35 days at hard labor, forfeiture of $350.00 pay per month for 2 months.
         CA action 19820920: Sentence approved and ordered executed.

19820805:        To confinement.

19820903:        From confinement.

19830116 :        NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ:
         Article 86: (3 specifications), Failure to go appointed place of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $286 for 1 month, restriction and extra duty for 45 days.
         No indication of appeal in the record.

19830225 :        Special Court-Martial.
         Charge I : V iolation of the UCMJ, Article 86 ( 36 specifications) .
         Specification 1 : F ailed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830117, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 2: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830118, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 3: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830118, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 4: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830119, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 5: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830119, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 6: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 7: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 8: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830120, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 9: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 10: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 11: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1 630, 198301 2 1, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 12: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830121, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 13: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 14: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 15: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 16: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830122, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 17: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 18: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 19: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 20: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830123, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 21: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 22: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 11 30, 198301 24 , to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 23 Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 24: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830124, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 25: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 26: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1130, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 27: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1630, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 28: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830125, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 29: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830117, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 30: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830118, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office . Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 31: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830119, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 32: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830120, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 33: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830121, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 34: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 198301 22 , to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn .
         Specification 35: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830124, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 36: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830125, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at -Arms Office. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134:
         Specification: Break said restriction on 0900, 19830124. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Additional Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86:
         Specification : Did on or about 0900, 19830124, without authority, absent himself from his unit, to wit: USS Enterprise, and did remain so absent until on or about 2100, 19830125. Plea : Guilty, excepting the word and figures “0700”, 19980126” substituting therefore the word and figure “2100”, 19830125 ”.To the excepted word and figures; not guilty. To the substituting word and figures; guilty. To Additional Charge I: guilty . Finding : Guilty.
         Additional Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 (24 specifications).
         Specification 1: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830126, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 2: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830126, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 3: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830127, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 4: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830127, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 5: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830128, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 6: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830128, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 7: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830129, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
        Specification 8: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830129, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 9: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830130, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 10: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830130, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 11: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830131, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 12: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2 130, 198301 31 , to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 13: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830201, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn.
         Specification 14: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830202, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn.
         Specification 15: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830126, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 16: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830127, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn
         Specification 17: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830128, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn
         Specification 18: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830129, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn
         Specification 19: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 1800, 19830131, to wit: Extra Duty Muster at the Master-at-Arms Office. Plea : Not Guilty. Finding : Withdrawn
         Specification 20: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830201, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty
         Specification 21: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830201, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty
         Specification 22: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830202, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 23: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 2130, 19830202, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
         Specification 24: Failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 0630, 19830203, to wit: Restricted Men’s Muster on the Hanger Deck. Plea : Guilty. Finding : Guilty.
        Sentence: Confinement at hard labor for 5 months, f orfeiture of $ 250 .00 pay per month for 5 months, and a Bad Conduct Discharge .
         CA action 19830320 : Sentence approved , however, the execution of that portion extending to confinement at hard labor in excess of 60 days will be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of trial, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended confinement at hard labor shall be remitted without further action.

19820805:        To confinement.

19820903:        From confinement.

Elements of Discharge: [BCD]

Record of Trial Complete:
Date Charges Preferred:                            19830203
Date Charges Referred to Special Court-Martial: 19830215
Trial Date:                                          19830225
Applicant requested BCD:
Length of BCD S uspension:
Date Applicant to Confinement:                     19830225
Date Applicant from Confinement:                           19830415
Date Applicant to Voluntary Appellate Leave:     19830419
NC&PB Action and Date:                              Clemency review waived 19920224
NMCCA Action and Date:                              Affirmed findings and sentence on 19830727
Date Appellate Review Complete:                   19900518
Date of SSPCMO ordering BCD be executed :         19920317
Date Applicant Discharged:                         19920317

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:

Additional Information Considered by Board

Type of d ocumentation submitted by t he Applicant and considered by the Board

        Document Type                                        #Pages
Related to Period of Service Under Review :
         Service/Medical Record :                            2
         Other Period of Service:                                    0
Related to Post-Service Period:
         Community Service :                                   0
         Education :                                           0
         Employment :                                          0
         Health /Medical :                                     0
         Character Statements:                               0
         Criminal Records Checks:                                    0
         Additional Statements from Applicant:             1
Other Documentation      (Describe Below)                 0

Total Number of Pages:                            3

Applicant’s Issues as Summarized by the Board:
1. Personal problems i.e. family was the cause for his in service misconduct.
2. Requesting upgrade for Employment enhancement.

Issue 2 - either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Decisional Issues:

Issue 1 : ( ). The Applicant contends his disciplinary problems were the result of stress caused by family situation. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB found that the Applicant’s service was equitably characterized. Relief is denied.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A . Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURTMARTIAL.

B . 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 V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity.

C. 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 87 (Missing movement) and Article 134 (Broke restriction).

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : 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 ” .

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/ RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD.” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. 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.

Board Membership: 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600312

Original file (ND0600312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND06-00312 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051207. No indication of appeal in the record.900907: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Absence from appointed of duty, restricted muster 900907. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the Applicant’s issues were sufficient to merit clemency (C).
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01105

Original file (ND02-01105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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 86- unauthorized absence.
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600520

Original file (ND0600520.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant also violated Article 91 of the UCMJ, disrespectful in language to a Third Class Petty Officer in the performance of duty. Dismissed.930527: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Specification: On or about 0715, 930506, without authority, fail to go to restricted muster in the hangar bay. Your Commanding Officers Nonjudicial Punishment on board USS TRIPOLI (LPH 10) of 930402, violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Spec: On or about 920321, fail to obey a lawful order issued by the...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000951

Original file (ND1000951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01125

Original file (ND02-01125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 990424 - 990527 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 990528 Date of Discharge: 011105 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 05 08 Inactive: None 011028: Applicant...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501073

Original file (ND0501073.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). USS ENTERPRISE, on active duty, did on board USS ENTERPRISE, on or about 0700, 27 May 2002, without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: pretrial restriction muster.Violation of the UCMJ, Article 89: Specification: In that Mess Management Specialist Seaman C_ L. G_ (Applicant), U.S. Navy. USS...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600367

Original file (ND0600367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, it requested that the Board consider the mitigating and extenuating circumstances in this case, to include the impetuosity of his youth, and grant a favorable decision.If a favorable decision can not be granted at this time, it is requested that the Applicant be scheduled for a future Hearing.DAV” Documentation In addition to the service record, the...
NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00434

Original file (ND03-00434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

My decision to refuse the anthrax vaccine was not one that I took lightly. 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 issues raised regarding the legality and safety of the Department of Defenses’ (DOD) Anthrax Vaccination program are beyond the purview of the NDRB to address. As this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500776

Original file (ND0500776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. While the Applicant may feel that there were mitigating factors to his misconduct, the record does not contain, nor did t he Applicant provide, any evidence to suggest that he was not responsible, or should not be held accountable, for his misconduct. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601057

Similar Decisions