Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700501
Original file (ND0700501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-ET2, USN
ND07-00501
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070302            Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT                                Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change: Not Specified

Applicant’s Issues:       1. Manual for Courts Martial was not followed.
                           2. Verdict based on perjured testimony


Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
Date: 20 071108                                       Location: Washington D.C.


Discussion

 Issue 1 and 2 ( ): The Applicant contends that h is court martial was improperly processed and that the verdict was based on perjured testimony. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support h is claim . There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the se contention s. To the contrary in the Applicant’s own statement to the B oard he admits violating the military protective order, to harass ment and to assaulting his former roommate, furthermore he states that he has not read the manual for courts martial and he provides no evidence to substantiate his claim of perjured testimony. E ven if the Applicant could document his claim this would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Each violation of UCMJ Article 92 and 134 constitutes the “co mmission of a serious offense” which forms the basis for the Applicant’s discharge and is punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to 3 years of imprisonment for each specification. The record supports the commission of a serious offense for which the Applicant was administratively discharged. T he se paration was appropriate and a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service is warranted . T he Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable .

With regard to the Applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed , the NDRB will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. The MILPERSMAN designates specific phraseology to be used in block 28 of the DD-214. In the Applicant’s case the separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual. The Applicant was properly administratively processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense . The Applicant’s record clearly documents his summary court martial conviction for violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 (which are considered serious offenses). The Applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to present his case before an administrative review board. T he separation authority directed that that Applicant be discharged after ensuring compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual 1910-1 4 2 . Applicable regulations for the period in question direct that Block 28 contain the phrase “ MISCONDUCT ” when separating under these conditions. To change the Narrative Reason Separation would be inappropriate.

For the edification of the Applicant , t he 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 or based upon a disability ruling by the Veterans Administration .

In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence ( to include evidence submitted by the Applicant ) to rebut the presumption . After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, m edical and s ervice r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that


Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214 :

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 920310 UNTIL 940407 ”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19910603 - 19920309              Active:          19920310 - 19940407
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19940408               Years Contracted :        Date of Discharge: 19990719
Length of Service : 05 Yrs 03 Mths 12 D ys                                     Lost Time :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 99          Highest Rank /Rate : ET1
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):      
Performance: 4.0                   Behavior: 4.0              OTA: 4.00 (1)    4.0 evals
 Performance: 3.6                   Behavior: 3.4             OTA: 3.54 (5)     5.0 evals
 Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (2), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL, NAVY UNIT COMMENDATION, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON


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

 19940408:        Applicant reenlisted for 6 years, receiving a selective reenlistment bonus.

19960619:        Applicant transferred to USS NIMITZ (CVN 68).

19980212:        Applicant awarded Navy Achievement Medal.
19981030:        Applicant completed Leve l III residential treatment at Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department, Naval Hospital Norfolk.
19990614 :        S ummary C ourt M artial - Viol UCMJ Art. 92 ( Failure to obey, 3 specs) - (1) Failure to obey a lawful general order between March 1999 and May 1999, (2) S exually harass two female shipmates, (3) violat ing a military protective order; Viol UCMJ Art. 128 (s imple assault ); Viol UCMJ Art. 134 (c ommunicating a threat ) .
          Awarded - RIR ( E- 5 ); Restr ( 60 days) .
         CA action: 19990614, app r oved.

20060112:        BCNR changed Applicant’s characterization of service to General (under honorable conditions).


Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       199906 24
Reason for Discharge:     -
        
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  199906 24
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                       
        
Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19990624 )
Separation Authority (date):     COMNAVAIRLANT NORFOLK VA ( 19990709 )
 Reason for discharge directed:  -
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19990719


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 Navy Personnel Command
                                    Letter from Waple and Associates to R_ W. S_, Jr.
                                    Letter to Head, Disability Section, Board for Correction of Naval Records
                                     Letter to Waple and Associates from Board for Correction of Naval Records
                                     Letter from Director, Secretary of Navy Council of Review Boards to Executive Director,                                                       Board for Correction of Naval Records
                                     Letter from Waple and Associates to R_ W. S_, Jr
                                     Letter to applicant
                                     Letter to Secretary of the Navy
                                     Power of Attorney
                                    

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 29 March 2000,
Article 1910-142, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

 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 each violation of the UCMJ, Article s 92 and 134 .

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, provi ded 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 grante d 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.
Employmen t / 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700566

    Original file (MD0700566.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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 19901129 - 19911103 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19911104Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge:19940408Length of Service: 02 Yrs 05Mths05 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...

  • 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 | ND0700641

    Original file (ND0700641.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Absent any documentation provided by the Applicant for the Board to consider, the Board determined that the Applicant’s service record did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700346

    Original file (ND0700346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that an upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate and also determined that the narrative reason was appropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701110

    Original file (ND0701110.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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20030109 - 20030406Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030407Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20050825Length of Service: 02 Yrs 04Mths19 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700138

    Original file (ND0700138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT. 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: 20021002 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700784

    Original file (ND0700784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19890607 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19930218 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 08 Mths 12 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: 48 Days Confined: 25 Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 59 Highest Rank/Rate: STGSN Evaluation marks (# of occasions): Performance: 3.2(4) Behavior: 3.3(4) OTA: 3.40 (4.0 scale) Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NDSM Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700455

    Original file (MD0700455.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge 20010702: Applicant counseled concerning an alcohol-related incident specifically getting drunk and going into an unauthorized absence status. Applicant chose not to make a statement.20031016: Medical Record: Reason for visit: Facial Injury due to fight/altercation: Diagnosis: Recommendation:20031201: MARCORSEPMAN 6105 counseling for pattern of misconduct, violation of Articles 86, 92,121, and 134. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700367

    Original file (ND0700367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct towards a master chief petty officer), 92 (failure to obey written regulation), 95 (resistance), 112 (drunk on duty), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) and 134 (unlawful entry) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700273

    Original file (ND0700273.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record clearly indicates that the Applicant was afforded his NJP appeal rights, but did not take that opportunity to challenge the NJP. The Board found that this issue was directly contradicted by the Applicant’s own statement, indicated on his separation physical, that he did not use alcohol. 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,...