Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700634
Original file (ND0700634.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-AR, USN
ND07-00634
Application Received: 20070417   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT DUE TO COMMISSION OF SERIOUS OFFENSES Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to: HONORABLE OR

                           Narrative Reason change to:

Applicant’s Issues:       1. Re Code
         2. Seeking reenlistment
3. No misconduct


Decision
By a vote of the Characterization shall remain .       
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall remain MISCONDUCT .
Date: 20 071101                                             Location: Washington D.C.       


Discussion


 Issue s 1 -2 . The Applicant contends that he has attempt ed to reenlist in the Navy f or the past year but is unable to do so because of his RE Code. which the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief Applicant is seeking . The refore, Applicant is directed to the attached Addendum for additional information regarding Reenlistment/RE-code s .

Issue 3 ( ). Applicant c ontends that it has been nine years since he was separated for serious misconduct . He admits that he made mistakes and has learned his lesson. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. 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 p eriod of service under review. The Applicant provided letters of re ference from government officials and a friend. However, none of letters provide d insight into Applicant’s post employment activities. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing. For example, the Applicant could have produced detailed evidence of a verifiable employment record, educational pursuits, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the circumstances that resulted in the characterization of discharge . As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of his discharge .

Issue 4 (Equity). The Board , on its own volition , examined matters raised by the Applicant via correspondence to his congressman o n 2007 0315 , contending that he was sexually assaulted, and given the op tion of staying in or getting out of the Navy . He elected to get out of the Navy an d was supposedly, “ given a recommendation for an h onorable discharge by his commanding officer. ” On 2007 0330 , t he Applicant submitted additional correspondence to his congressman stating, “ the U.S. Navy gave me a ludicrous discharge and it has branded me as something that I am not: homosexual and dishonorable . ” 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 s . There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention s noted above . The Applicant did not refute the narrative reason of misconduct in his petition to NDRB; neither did he request an upgrade to an honorable discharge. The evidence contained in Applicant’s service record indicates that the Applicant was punished at NJP on 1997 0529 , for violation of UCMJ, Article 91, insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer by using vulgar and/or obscene language. He was given a r etention warning on 1997 0530 , and was sent to NJP again on 1998 0714 , for violations of Articles 90, 91, 92, 107, and 134 of the UCMJ a nd awarded punishment. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by the retention warning and two NJP proceedings for violations of Articles 90, 91, 92, 107, and 134 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge if such a change is warranted. There is no evidence of impropriety, inequity or procedural irregularities in t he Applicant's discharge. The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented . Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

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 presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, 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 :

         “ 02 10 11 ”
         “ 00 08 21 ”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORBALE CONDITIONS ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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: NONE                     Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 1994122 3               Years Contracted :        Date of Discharge: 19980724
Length of Service : Active: 02 Yrs 10 Mths 11 D ys          Inactive: 00 Yrs 08 Mths 21 D ys
 Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 31          Highest Rank /Rate : AN
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: N/A          Behavior: N/A     OTA: N/A
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, ARMED FORCES SERVICE MEDAL, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL


Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge
19950914:        Applicant to active duty for 3 years.

 19970529 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 91 - Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer by using vulgar and/or obscene language .
         Awarded - FOP ($ 505.05 ) for ( 1 month); RIR ( E-1 ); Restr for ( 45 days); Extra duties ( 45 days). Restr for 15 days suspended. RIR suspended for 6 months.
19970530:        Retention Warning for insubordinate conduct towards a petty officer.

19980714 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 90 - Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, Art. 91 - Insubordinate conduct toward petty officer, Art. 92 - Failure to obey a lawful general regulations, Art. 107 - False official statement, Art. 134 - Dishonorably failing to pay just debts .
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 500.00 ) for ( 2 months); RIR ( E-2 ); Restr for ( 45 days); Extra duties ( 45 days) .

Discharge Process
Date Notified:                                       NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Reason 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                               

Administrative Board Date if any          NOT FOUND IN RECORD

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Separation Authority (date):     NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Reason for discharge directed: 
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19980724


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 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 .



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 | 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 | 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 | ND0700864

    Original file (ND0700864.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: “ GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) ” “ MILPERSMAN 1910-140” “ TL: 20NOV13 to 02DEC12.”The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700404

    Original file (ND0700404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the record that the Separation Authority failed to consider all relevant factors, including the Applicant’s overall service, in determining that an under than honorable conditions discharge was warranted. 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. Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700405

    Original file (ND0700405.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. 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 . ” 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...

  • 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 | ND0701034

    Original file (ND0701034.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)19950831 - 19950919Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19950920Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19990709Length of Service: 03 Yrs 09Mths20 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • 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 | ND0700739

    Original file (ND0700739.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-FR, USN ND07-00739 Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20070511 Characterization Received: OTHER THAN HONORABLE Narrative Reason: PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910- 140 Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues: 1. The Board noted the favorable comments indicating the Applicant’s post-service behavior; however, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700286

    Original file (ND0700286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offense that he committed. 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...