Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700868
Original file (ND0700868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BMSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070612
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20040416 - 20040428             
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20040429               Period of enlistment : Years             Date of Discharge: 20061117
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 17 D ys      Education Level:                  Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 66
Highest Rank /Rate : BMSN   Evaluation marks: Performance: N/A        Behavior: N/A              OTA: N/A
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): , , , and

NJP :      20061011 : Violation of UCMJ Art icle 91 (insubordinate conduct) . Awarded - , , and ; Susp - Vacate d : 20061027.
         20061027 : Violation of UCMJ Art icle 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) and 92 (failure to obey) . Awarded -
         20061114 : Violation of UCMJ Art icle 134 ( drunkenness and communicating a threat, 2 specs) . Awarded - and


Types of Documents Submitted

 Related 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 Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe) E-mail from Naval Legal Service Office Pacific and Letter to United States House of Representatives from Navy Personnel Command


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Navy rules and regulations as well as personal rights violated.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0313             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 Issue 1 ( ): The Applicant contends that h is discharge was improper, the rules and regulations of the U. S. Navy as well as his personal rights were violated. 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 h is claim . There is no evidence in the record nor has the Applicant produced any evidenc e to support the se contention s. To the contrary in the Applicant’s own statement to the Board he admits guilt to all UCMJ Violations to which he was taken to non-judicial punishment (even though he believes he was processed improperly) . E ven if the Applicant could document his claim this would neither amount to a justification nor to a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. Each violation of UCMJ Article 90 (willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct), 92 (failure to obey), and 134 (communicating a threat) constitutes the “co mmission of a serious offense” which forms the basis for the Applicant’s discharge and is punishable by a dishonorable discharge and up to five years of imprisonment for each specification. The record supports the commission of a serious offense for which the Applicant was administratively discharged. T hat se paration was appropriate, and a “ under other than honorable conditions ” characterization of service is warranted .

In reviewing discharges, the Board presume s regularity in the conduct of g overnment al 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 s ummary of s ervice, m edical and s ervice r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess and evid ence submitted by the Applicant the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 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 .

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, 92 , and 134 (communicating a threat) .


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801010

    Original file (ND0801010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and documentation of his honorable discharge from the New York Army National Guard as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined an upgrade or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800848

    Original file (ND0800848.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge. The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801796

    Original file (ND0801796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and medical records, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE. ” 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...

  • 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700773

    Original file (ND0700773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings, the award of two nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer), Article 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle), Article 134 ( Drunkenness), Article 134 (False or unauthorized pass...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900360

    Original file (MD0900360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OR REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE.Discussion : 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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention his Narrative Reason for Separation should not indicate his discharge was ordered by a Court-Martial; therefore the Narrative Reason should be changed to “Completion of Required Active...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800957

    Original file (MD0800957.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Doctor informed the Applicant the administrative separation overrides all other issues including a medical board and medical hold. Again, an upgrade to the Applicant's discharge is inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801180

    Original file (ND0801180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the severity and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant and the lack of mitigating factors, the Board determined the “Under Other Than Honorable” discharge was the most appropriate characterization of service and upgrade 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900161

    Original file (ND0900161.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service was marred by eighteen (18) retention warnings for performance, personal behavior, private indebtedness and responsibilities;and two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), Article 91 (Disobeying a direct order) and Article 134 (Communicating a threat). The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length...