Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601183
Original file (ND0601183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-AMHAR, USN
ND06-01183
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20060918   Characterization Received: other than honorable
Narrative Reason: PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 3630600

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:      1. Veterans Affairs benefits.
 2. Misconduct caused by psychological depression and PTSD after sexual assault.
                           3 . Post service.

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted:                 20051206               
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:    ND05-01136             
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 DISCHARGE PROPER AND EQUITABLE      
Applicant Testified: YES
Applicant Available for Questions: YES
Witnesses:      
Observers:      
Applicant Testified:
Applicant Available for Questions:
Witnesses:      
Observers:      

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall       
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

Date: 20071114 PERSONAL HEARING Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

Discussion

Issue 1 : 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 .

Issue 2 (Equity) The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. 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. The NDRB reviewed all of the available records, supporting documents, facts, elements of discharge, evidence submitted by the Applicant, and circumstances unique to this case. A particular circumstance which the board weighed was the assault suffered by the Applicant. Although not an excuse for misconduct, the NDRB noted it as a mitigating factor and as a result determined that an i nequity in the characterization did occur.

Issue 3 (Equity). The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered. The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant was not a mitigat ing factor t hat should effect change of the discharge

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, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that

By a vote of the Characterization shall .     
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall       .
Date: 20       Location: Washington D.C. The Board found that

Issue(s) 1 - ?: 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 .

Issue       ( ).

Issue       ( ).

[discuss issues identified by the Board, if any, here]

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, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

 Dissenting Opinion (omit if none).


The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “       ”
         “       ”
         “       ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19910531 - 19910904    
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19910905      Years Contracted : ; Extension:          Date of Discharge: 19930929
Length of Service: 02 Yrs 00 Mths 25 D ys         Lost Time: Days UA: Days Confined:
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 96 Highest Rank/Rate: AMHAN
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 2 , . 8 ( 2 )     Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )         OTA: 3.20
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL


Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

 19920810:        CO's NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 (5 specs) - (1) Failed to go to duty section muster, (2) Failed to muster for duty, (3) Failed to muster for duty, (4) Not at recall while in a duty status, (5) Failed to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty. Awarded - – Oral reprimand; FOP ($100.00) for (1 month); RIR (E-2) (suspended for 6 months) .

1992090 2 :        Vacate suspended RIR awarded at CO’s NJP dated 19920810 for violation of UCMJ Article 91, Insubordinate conduct towards an NCO.

19920902:        CO's NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 91 (3 specs) - Insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer, Art. 90 - Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, Art. 86 (6 specs) - Failure to go at the time prescribed to appointed place of duty. Awarded - RIR (E-1); Restr for (30 days); Extra duties (30 days).

19920902:        Retention Warning for CO’s NJP dated 19920902 - Art. 90 - willful disobedience, Art. 91 x 3 - insubordinate conduct, Art. 86 x 6 - UA.
19930323:        Naval Hospital Portsmouth, VA, Psychiatry Clinic : Command directed due to flau n ting 22 caliber pistol and large knife at base gym. Base security confiscated weapons in barracks. States do she imagine s killing people but denies homicidal/suicidal ideations.
         Diagnosis: Borderline personality disorder.
         Recommendation: Fit for duty psychistrically psychi a trically . Recommend routine administrative separation.

19930525:        CO's NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 (2 specs) - (1) Violate a lawful general regulation by having a 22 caliber Smith and Wesson semi-automatic pistol, 220 rounds of 22 caliber ammunition, and a 11 inch US Navy dive knife , (2) Violate a lawful written order , driving in excess o f the ramp speed limit.
Awarded - FOP ($407.40) for (2 months); Restr for (45 days).

19930729:        Defense Counsel letter of deficiency for Administrative Board. Applicant claims that she was the victim of four attempted rapes; two before service and two while in service. Applicant claims she occasionally carries the knife with her for protection.

19930722:        Medical Record: Reason for visit: Flight surgeon has reviewed psychiatry evaluation from 19930323 and concurs with fit for full duty with a routine administrative separation as borderline personality disorder is not compatible with military service.

Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       19930615
Reason for Discharge:    -
         - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                 19930621
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                         (NOT FOUND IN RECORD)
         Administrative Board                      
         GCMCA review                               

Administrative Board Date :       19930723
Findings, by preponderance of the evidence:     BY - .
         BY -
PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .
          BY SEPARATION WARRANTED.
Recommendation on Separation:   BY
Recommendation on Characterization:     BY

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19930825 )
Separation Authority (date):     BUPERS ( 19930916 )
Reason for discharge directed:  - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19930929

NDRB Document Review:    DISCHARGE PROPER AND EQUITABLE (20051206)


Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

 Related to Military Service:     Service and/or Medical Record:            Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:         
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education:               
         Health/Medical Records:                   Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
        
Additional Statements From Applicant:    From Representative:
Other Documentation (Describe) Letter from Member of Congress



Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

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 s of the UCMJ, Article s 91 and 92 .



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 to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501136

    Original file (ND0501136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION No indication of appeal in the record.930615: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense and commission of a pattern of misconduct.930621: Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to appear before an administrative discharge board, to be represented at administrative discharge board, to submit...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700447

    Original file (ND0700447.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, discharge process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative errors on the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700214

    Original file (ND0700214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by four nonjudicial punishments and two retention warning for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 6 specifications), 87 (missing movement), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct, 2 specifications), 92 (failure to obey, 3 specifications), 107 (false official statements), 111 (drunk operation of a motor vehicle), 112 (drunk on watch), and 134 (disorderly conduct and communicating a threat). ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700916

    Original file (ND0700916.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “MISCONDUCT ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Awarded - FOP ($200.00) for (2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700253

    Original file (ND0700253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date Applicant Responded to Notification:19910515 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19910603) Separation Authority (date): BUPERS WASHINGTON DC (19910617)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19920416 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700394

    Original file (ND0700394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ 02JAN2000-04JAN2000 ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Awarded - Restr for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700211

    Original file (ND0700211.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that her command did not follow proper procedures.The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. Recommendation on Separation: BY Recommendation on Characterization: BY Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19970925) Separation Authority (date): COMCRUDESGRU THREE (19971014)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700345

    Original file (ND0700345.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Date Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORDReason for Discharge:-Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:NOT FOUND IN RECORD Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): Separation Authority (date): NOT FOUND IN RECORDReason for discharge directed: Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20000929...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600641

    Original file (ND0600641.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and the characterization of his service. Recommendation on Separation: BY Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19940418)Chief of Naval Operations (19940518)Separation Authority (date): Asst Sec of Navy (M&RA)(19940603)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19940624 Types of Documents Submitted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700178

    Original file (ND0700178.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. 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...