Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700617
Original file (ND0700617.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-AR, USN
ND07-00617
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070405   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: COMMISION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-140

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Employment Opportunities
2. Inducted into service with ADD and bi-polar conditions that were never addressed
3. Conditions should have been addressed before separation
                           4 . Bullied and harassed by superiors
                           5 . Young and immature in service
                           6 . Does not understand the reasoning the Navy took against her to give her an undesirable discharge
                           

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMMISION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .

Date: 20 071129 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 s 2 & 3 : ( ). After review of the Applicant’s medical record, the Board found no entries on either the Applicant’s entry into or separation from service physical s indicating any mental or psychological issues . The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 4 : ( ). The Applicant implies that she was bullied and harassed by her superiors. 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 his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was bullied or harassed . The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue s 5 & 6 : ( ). The Applic ant contends that h er problems were attributed to h er immaturity and does not understand the reasoning the Navy took against her to give her an undesirable discharge . While s he may feel that her immaturity was the underlying cause of h er misconduct, the record clearly reflects h er willful misconduct and demonstrated s he was unfit for further service. S eparation under these conditions generally results in characterization of service under other than honorable conditions. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h er conduct or that s he should not be held accountable for h er actions. When a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis f or determining the character of h er service was marred by the award of one nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence) and Article 87 (Missing movement) and one Summary Court-Martial for violation of the UCMJ Article 91 (Insubordinate towards a chief petty officer) and Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order) . Violations of UCMJ Article s 87, 91, and 9 2 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.


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


Summary of Service

 Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20010511 - 20010520              Active:               
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20010521      Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 20020617
Length of Service :    Yrs 10    Mths 17    D ys   Lost Time : Days UA: 26 Days Confine d : 21
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 35          Highest Rank /Rate : AA
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: NOT FOUND IN RECORD      
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL      

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

 20020215 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 8 6 – Unauthorized absence from unit (26 days); Art. 87 – Missing movement .
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 500.00 ) for ( 2 months); RIR (paygrade); Restr for ( 45 days); Extra duties ( 45 days) . 15 days suspended for six months. FOP ($150.00) for (1 month) suspended for 6 months.

20020430 :        SCM -- Viol UCMJ Art. 91 (3 specs) – Insubordinate towards a chief petty officer and 1 st class petty officer; Art. 92 – failure to obey a lawful order ; Art 86 – Unauthorized absence from appointed place of duty .
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 736.00 ) for ( 1 months); RIR ( E-1 ); Confinement ( 30 days) .

Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       20020504
Reason for Discharge:     -
        
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  20020506
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                       
         GCMCA review                               


Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20020517 )
Separation Authority (date):     BUPERS ( 20020606 )
 Reason for discharge directed:  -
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       20020617






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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 Jan 01 until 21 Aug 02, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. 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 violation of the UCMJ, Article s 87, 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701170

    Original file (MD0701170.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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

  • 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801391

    Original file (ND0801391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the misconduct represented significant negative conduct and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade to “Honorable” would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800393

    Original file (MD0800393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or one the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100080

    Original file (ND1100080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends medical issues contributed to his misconduct.2. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700332

    Original file (ND0700332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation other than her statement.. 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: “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy...

  • 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800282

    Original file (ND0800282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An upgrade to General under honorable conditions would be inappropriate.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700900

    Original file (MD0700900.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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20010709 - 20020623 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020624Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20040803Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01 Mths 10 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...