Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700503
Original file (ND0700503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
, ex-SA, USN
ND07-00503
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070306                     Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT-COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE Authority: MILPERSMAN 3620200

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change :

Applicant’s Issues:       1. VA Benefits
                           2. Disrespect to a commissioned officer is not smart , but not a serious offense.
                           3. Post Service – Employed and family


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: 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 ( ): The Applicant contends that being disrespectful to a commissioned officer is not a serious offense. For the information of Applicant, the record clearly documents the Applicant ’s two nonjudicial punishments for violation s of UCMJ Article s 90 (disobeying a commissioned officer ) , 91 (disr espect) and 92 (failure to obey, 3 specifications) . Each of these violation s are defined by the manual for courts-martial as serious offenses and as such constitute the “c ommission of a serious offense”. Each violation of the above articles is punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to five year s of imprisonment if adjudicated by a Courts Martial. The commission of a serious offense is the actual basis for discharge in this case. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considers his discharge proper and equitable.

Issue 3 ( ): 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 Applicant provided his statement in which he states that he now has a family and is employed in support of his post-service claim . The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the statement provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in hi s discharge and the characterization of his service.

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 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: US N R (DEP)      19911213 - 19911225              Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19911226               Years Contracted :                Date of Discharge: 19940930
Length of Service : 02 Yrs 09 Mths 05 D ys                                              Lost Time :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 44          Highest Rank /Rate : SN
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 3.1                   Behavior: 3.0     OTA: 3.16 (5)
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL


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

 19930823 :        NJP - Viol UCMJ Art. 90 ( d isobeying a superior commissioned officer ); Viol UCMJ Art. 91 (d isrespectful language to ward a petty officer ); Viol UCMJ Art. 92 (f ail to obey a lawful general order ) .
          Awarded - RIR ( E-2 ); Restr ( 45 days); Extra duties ( 45 days).
19940906 :        NJP - Viol UCMJ Art. 92 ( d isrespectful in language toward a petty officer); Viol UCMJ Art. 92 (2 specs , f ail to obey a petty officer and f ail to obey a commissioned officer) .
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 200.00 1 month); RIR ( E-2 ); Restr ( 14 days); Extra duties ( 21 days) .

19940906:        Commanding Officer USS CAPE COD recommended to BUPERS the Applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense with a other than honorable characterization of service. Commanding Officer’s comments: “ ...SA T_ (Applicant) did not care and would be disrespectful towards anyone in authority over him. SA T_ stated, at mast that he did not desire to remain in the Navy and wanted to be separated from the naval service.... ”


Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       199409 06
Reason for Discharge:     -
         MISCONDUCT – DRUG ABUSE
         MISCONDUCT – PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  199409 06
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                         ( BUT FAILED TO DO SO)
         Administrative Board                       
        
Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19940916 )
Separation Authority (date):     BUPERS ( 1 9 940923 )
 Reason for discharge directed:  -
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19940930


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)


Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996,
Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 violation s of the UCMJ, Article s 90, 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, 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701068

    Original file (ND0701068.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)19920806 - 19930124Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19930125Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19950315Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01Mths21 DysLost Time:Days UA: 1 Days Confined: Education...

  • 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 | ND0700780

    Original file (ND0700780.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700763

    Original file (ND0700763.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Each violation of UCMJ Article 91 and 92constitutes the “commission of a serious offense” which forms the basis for the Applicant’s discharge and is punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to three years of imprisonment for each specification. Discharge Process Date Notified: 20060206Reason for Discharge:-Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20060206 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700888

    Original file (ND0700888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade in the characterization of service. The Board voted 5-0 that the narrative reason shall change to Secretarial Authority.The Applicant was notified of his intended administrative discharge by reason on misconduct due to the commission of a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700517

    Original file (ND0700517.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)19940613 - 19940905Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19940906Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19960625 Length of Service: 01 Yrs 08Mths13 DysLost Time:Days UA: 38 Days Confined: Education...