Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700920
Original file (ND0700920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-PSSN, USN
ND07-00920
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070626   Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)   Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:      1. Discharge harsh, inhumane, unfair and highly discriminatory
                           2. Consented to discharge when advised characterization would be general

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Date: 200801 31             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

Discussion

Issue 1 ( ). The Applicant asserts that his discharge was “harsh, inhumane, unfair and highly discriminatory;” however, he provides no evidence or assert any facts in support of his contention. His record indicates that he had nonjudicial punishment for a number of offenses each of which constitutes a serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The government is entitled to a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs, and the Board found no evidence in the record of improper or unfair action toward the Applicant. The Applicant’s uncorroborated assertions do not refute the presumption of regularity.

Issue 2 ( ). The Applicant asserts that he was “reliably informed” (by implication, his commanding officer) that he would receive a general discharge and that, in exchange for this he consented to waive his rights. The Applicant’s record clearly demonstrates that the Applicant was properly notified in writing of the proposed separation and that the least favorable characterization possible was under other than honorable conditions. The Applicant waived his rights to seek counsel, to submit statements or to dispute his discharge before an administrative discharge board. There is no evidence in the record that the Applicant was misled or deceived in any way, or that any improper action was directed toward him. The notification, election of rights, transmittal letter and separation authority action are all proper on their face. As noted above, the Applicant’s
uncorroborated assertions do not refute the presumption of regularity.

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: USNR (DEP)     20001129 - 20001217              Active:          20001218 - 20040119
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20040120               Years Contracted : ; Extension:   Date of Discharge: 20061024
Length of Service: 02 Yrs 09 Mths 05 D ys                  Lost Time: Days UA: Days Confined:
Education Level:                  Age at Enlistment:                AFQT: 78          Highest Rank/Rate: PS3
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )                 OTA: 1.86
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, GCM, SSDR, PISTOL EX

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


 20060927:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 89 (2 specs) – disrespect to 0-5; 91 – Insubordinate to E-7; Art 92 (2 specs) – Failure to show ID card and failing to be restrained; 95 – Escape from custody; 134 (2 specs) – Communicating threat on 20060419.
         Awarded - FOP ($896.00) for (2 months); RIR (E-3); CC B&W (3 days).
Discharge Process

 Date Notified:                                       20060927
 Reason for Discharge:    -
Least Favorable Characterization:       

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                 20060927
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel                      
         Obtain Copies of Documents               
         Submit Statement(s) (date)                        
         Administrative Board                      

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20060928 )
Separation Authority (date):     COMMANDER, CARRIER STRIKE GROUP TWELVE ( 20060930 )
Reason for discharge directed:  -
Characterization directed:     
Date Applicant Discharged:       20061024

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 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 of the UCMJ, Articles 89, 91, 92, 95 and 134 (Threat, communicating).


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, provided 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 granted 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.
Employment/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 | ND0800112

    Original file (ND0800112.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) Picture, DD Form 149 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800034

    Original file (MD0800034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20000621 - 20000730 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20000731Period of enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge: 20030530Length of Service: Yrs Mths07 Dys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 49MOS: 3381 Highest Rank: Fitness reports: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): 3.7(6)/3.5(6) Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901335

    Original file (ND0901335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.I was told by my CO and XO that I would receive a medical discharge. The NDRB determined the awarded character of service was warranted and the narrative reason for discharge was appropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300086

    Original file (ND1300086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400330

    Original file (ND1400330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700009

    Original file (ND0700009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by a summary court martial, three nonjudicial punishments and a 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), and 92 (failure to obey, 2 specifications). Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Reason for DischargeNOT FOUND IN RECORDLeast Favorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800976

    Original file (MD0800976.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001163

    Original file (ND1001163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper medical authority. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700212

    Original file (ND0700212.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, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found no evidence that the Applicant’s discharge was fair.When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801502

    Original file (ND0801502.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, there is sufficient evidence to substantiate discharge for misconduct due to the commission of serious offenses and the fact the misconduct did not occur “back to back” as the Applicant contends is of no consequence since all of the NJP’s which led to the Applicant’s discharge occurred during the current enlistment as required under MILPERSMAN 1910 -210.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge...