Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700838
Original file (ND0700838.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-MM2, USN
ND07-00838
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070604   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE     Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-156

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to: “NEEDS OF THE NAVY ”
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Discharge not warranted by overall service record.

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE .
Date: 20 080103             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

Discussion

Issue 1 ( ). An honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. The Applicant’s period of service under review was marred by a retention warning and nonjudicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 92 and 128. Violations of Articles 92 and 128 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized upon conviction at special or general court-martial. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, falls short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Board found no inequity in the Applicant’s characterization of service. T he Board did note that, per regulation, the reason for discharge of unsatisfactory performance should not be used if a member qualifies for misconduct processing. The Applicant could have been processed for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The Board determined that a narrati ve reason of “misconduct” carried a more negative connotation than “unsatisfactory performance.” Therefore, the Board determined that the Applicant was not prejudiced by this error, and concluded that a narrative reason change was not warranted.

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

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214 :

Comments, should contain the statement “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19940322 - 20040327 ”

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) 19931120 - 19940321         Active:          19940322 - 19960516
                           19960517 - 20000517                                 20000518 - 20040327

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20040328                        Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 20061221
Length of Service : 02 Yrs 08 Mths 24 D ys                   Lost Time : Days UA: Days Confine d :
Education Level:                  Age at Enlistment:                AFQT: 91          Highest Rank /Rate : MM1
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 4.3 ( 4 )       Behavior: 3.0 ( 4 )                  OTA: 3.47
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM(2), NMCAM(3), SSDR(4), GCM(3), NUC, KOSOVO CAMPAIGN MEDAL, NATO MEDAL, AFEM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM

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

 20060223 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 – Engage in horseplay 20060213 – 20060214; Art 128 (3 specs) – Assault consummated by battery 20060213 - 20060214 .
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 1410.00 ) for ( 2 months) , $500.00 susp 6 months ; RIR ( E-5 ); Restr for ( 45 days) , 10 days susp 6 months ; Extra duties ( 45 days) .
20060223 :        Retention Warning for NJP of 20060214 (sic) .
20060705:        BUPERS removed Applicant’s Nuclear NEC effective this date due to demonstrated unreliability. Immediate force conversion required.

20060723:        Applicant acknowledged removal of Nucler NEC , requirement to submit force conversion , and understanding that failure to do so would result in recommendation for administrative separation.

 Xxxxxxxx:        Applicant refused to submit conversion request.
         [Extracted from recommendation for administrative separation.]

Xxxxxxxx:        USS GEORGE WASHINGTON requested COMNAVPERSCOM force convert Applicant or direct separation.
         [Extracted from recommendation for administrative separation.]

 20061115:        COMNAVPERSCOM advised that requested ratings could not be approved and recommended separation.

Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       20061129
Reason for Discharge:    
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  20061129
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                       
         GCMCA review                               

Separation Authority (date):     CO, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON ( 20061208 )
 Reason for discharge directed: 
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       20061221

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 12, effective 23 Sep 2005 until Present, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.
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 92, Failure to obey order or regulation; and 128, Assault .


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 | ND0700691

    Original file (ND0700691.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: USNR (DEP)20020130 - 20020606Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020607Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060522Length of Service: 03 Yrs 11Mths16 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001081

    Original file (ND1001081.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant submitted an application for rating conversion, but this request was disapproved by COMNAVPERSCOM, who then ordered his separation in accordance with Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 19 May 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.The Applicant’s record does reflect an NJP for an unknown UCMJ violation four months after his second reenlistment, and the Board presumes that this...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700921

    Original file (ND0700921.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Findings, by preponderance of the evidence: Recommendation on Separation: Recommendation on Characterization: Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): Separation Authority (date): OIC, BRANCH HEALTH CLINIC, CHINA LAKE (20051201)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20051201 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501101

    Original file (ND0501101.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 050402: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions under the authority of MILPERSMAN 1910-140 [No narrative reason for discharge was listed on the DD Form 214].050404: COMNAVPERSCOM directed Applicant’s discharge as type warranted by service record by reason of non-retention on active duty. The Applicant may, however, petition the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700728

    Original file (ND0700728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the available record and the Applicant’s credible submission, the Board did have doubts as to whether the Applicant’s discharge would have remained the same had these errors not been made and had a more thorough review of the facts and circumstances of the Applicant’s status occurred. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701093

    Original file (MD0701093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the circumstances that resulted in the characterization of discharge.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. 20050318: Vacate FOP for 1 month, Restr and Extra duties for 45 days awarded at NJP dated 20050116.20050331: MARCORSEPMAN 6105...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701234

    Original file (ND0701234.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700152

    Original file (ND0700152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of UCMJ Article 89 (Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a non-commissioned officer, and Article 128 (Assault upon a petty officer) are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. Date Applicant Responded to Notification:20060224 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900580

    Original file (ND0900580.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a review of the Applicant’s service record, statement, facts unique to this case, and mitigating factors such as the short duration of the Applicant’s UAs and her mental state at the time of discharge, the Board also voted unanimously to change the characterization of discharge. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall change to Honorable and the narrative reason for separation shall change to Secretarial Authority. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701229

    Original file (MD0701229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that the Veterans Administration’s medical review takes precedence over the military medical documentation or the military 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...