Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700643
Original file (ND0700643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-SR, USN
ND07-00643    
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070418   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Reenlistment Code Change
                           2. Command failed to ensure Applicant received Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment
                           3. Post Service

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
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 2: ( ). The Applicant implies that his c ommand failed to ensure Applicant received Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment . 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 the command did not ensure that the Applicant received rehabilitation treatment . The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 3: ( ). T here is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge, may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time . 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 no documentation of post-service accomplishments. T he 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. Absent any documentation provided by the Applicant for the Board to consider, the Board determined that the Applicant’s service record did not mitigat e the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. An upgrade 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)      19930421 - 19940628              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19940629      Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 19950224
Length of Service : 1 Yrs 7 Mths 26 D ys    Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 99          Highest Rank /Rate : SA
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 2.8 ( 3 )       Behavior: 2.5 ( 3 )          OTA: 2.7
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, BATTLE “E” RIBBON

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

 19940511 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 134 – Drunk and disorderly . Art. 86 (2 Specs) – Fail to go to appointed place of duty.
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 200.00 ) for ( 2 months); Oral Reprimand; Restr for ( 30 days); Extra duties ( 30 days) .

19940512 :        Retention Warning for Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly); Article 86 (Absent from appointed place of duty) .

19940616:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – Unauthorized Absence for appointed place of duty. Art. 92 – Disobeying a lawful order. Awarded - FOP ($200.00) for (2 months); Oral Reprimand; Restr for (7 days); Extra duties (7 days).

Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       19950119
Reason for Discharge:     -
        
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  19950119
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                         ( N O RECORD OF SUBMISSION )
          Administrative Board                       
         GCMCA review                               

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 19950123 )
Separation Authority (date):     BUPERS ( 19950201 )
 Reason for discharge directed:  -
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       19950224


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 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, 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 of the UCMJ, Article 92 ( Disobeying a lawful order ) .

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 | MD0701052

    Original file (MD0701052.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by a five discharge warnings and four nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Article(s) 86 and 92. ” 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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700235

    Original file (MD0700235.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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700265

    Original file (MD0700265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    19930423: NJP imposed and suspended on 19930409 for a period of 6 months vacated.19930803: CO's NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 19930824 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19930823) SJA review (date): (19930830) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 1 ST Marine Division (19930910) Basis for discharge directed: DUE TO: Characterization directed: Date...

  • 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 | ND0700336

    Original file (ND0700336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Recommendation on Separation: BY Recommendation on Characterization: BY Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (20060502) Separation Authority (date): COMMANDER, SUBMARINE GROUP 3 (20060509)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20060529 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period:...