Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701043
Original file (ND0701043.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-AR, USN
ND07-01043
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070724                                       Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: COURT MARTIAL          Authority: MILPERSMAN 5815-010

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

Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT MARTIAL .
Date: 20 080117             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

Discussion

 Issue 1 ( ). Relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. The Applicant claims that his misconduct, unauthorized absence (UA), was due to threats of harm to his family, specifically that his daughter was being harmed by her stepfather and that his mother had been beaten by her boyfriend. He also claims that on both occasions, prior to going UA he had submitted requests for emergency leave and been denied. The Board noted that at his court-martial, the Applicant stated that, on the first occasion he had submitted an emergency leave request but was impatient and went UA without waiting for approval. In reference to his second UA, occurring 8 days after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001 and 4 days after his release from confinement imposed as punishment for his first UA , the Applicant made no such claim of having requested emergency leave. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, the Board determined that discharge awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed.

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)      20000811 - 2000 0820              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20000821               Years Contracted : ; Extension:            Date of Discharge: 20030722
Length of Service : 00 Yrs 10 Mths 23 D ys                            Lost Time : Days UA: 294 Days Confine d : 86
Education Level:                  Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 34                   Highest Rank /Rate : AN
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       NOT FOUND IN RECORD      Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NONE

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

 20010402:        To unauthorized absence.

20010808:        From unauthorized absence (126 days/apprehended) .

 20010820 :        SCM -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – Unauthorized absence from 20010 4 02 until apprehended on 20010808 .
         Awarded - Confinement ( 30 days) .

20010913:        Applicant released from confinement and returned to full duty (25 days lost time) .

20010917:        To unauthorized absence.

20020307:        From unauthorized absence (168 days/apprehended).
Discharge Process

Charge(s) and Specification(s): Article 86 , UA from 20010919 until apprehended on 20020307.
Preferred: 20020318       Court-martial: 20020530   Findings: Guilty                  Sentence: BCD; Conf 75 days ; RIR E-1     CA action: 20020823      NC&PB Action: NOT FOUND IN RECORD        Appellate Review Complete: 2003062 6
BCD ordered executed: 20030701 SSPCMCO No. 03-1267                          Applicant Discharged: 20030722

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) Geneva Conventions Identification Card

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 8 September 2004, Article 5815-010 (formerly 3640420), Executing a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.
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 | 2009_Navy | ND0902499

    Original file (ND0902499.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a careful review of the Applicant's official service record and Record of Trial minutes, the NDRB determined there were no serious family issues to form a basis for clemency. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700198

    Original file (ND0700198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issue submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that the Applicant’s diagnosis did not provide grounds for misconduct, clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Whenever a member is being...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700537

    Original file (ND0700537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: HARDSHIPApplicant’s Issues:1.Narrative Reason change due to wife’s illness2. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, post service, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601209

    Original file (ND0601209.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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700127

    Original file (ND0700127.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 offenses he committed.Issue 2:(Equity). 05-0336 Date Applicant Discharged: 20050224 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700078

    Original file (ND0700078.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 warranted. 19990419: Special Court Martial for violations of UCMJ Articles: 86 (unauthorized absence) from 19990212 until 19990303 (apprehended) Plea: Guilty Finding: Guilty 92 (violation of lawful order) Plea: Guilty Finding: Guilty 134 (Possession of a false military ID card with intend to deceive) Plea: Guilty Finding: Guilty Award: Reduction to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701042

    Original file (ND0701042.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Charge and Specification: Article 86.Preferred: 19990325Court-martial: 19990419 Findings: Guilty of Article 86Sentence: BCD - Conf 90 days; FOP - $600/month for three months; CA action: 19990716NC&PB Action: NONEAppellate Review Complete: 20001121 BCD ordered executed: 20001129Applicant Discharged: 20001129 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600883

    Original file (ND0600883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    030724: NMCCCA: The findings of guilty and sentence, as approved on review are affirmed.031016: Appellate review complete.031020: SSPCMO: Article 71c, UCMJ, having been complied with, Bad Conduct discharge ordered executed. Relief is not authorized.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Manual for courts-martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700523

    Original file (ND0700523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    19990822: Applicant to pretrial confinement.19990929: Special Court Martial – Applicant plead guilty to violation of UCMJ Article 86 (174 days); was found guilty and ordered a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 75 days, reduction in rank to E-1 and forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months. 01-013 Applicant Discharged: 20010112 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other Records: Related to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900180

    Original file (ND0900180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends he is entitled to clemency because the punishment adjudged was too harsh for his misconduct. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was within the parameters established by the Navy for the Article 86 violation in question and clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the...