Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701076
Original file (ND0701076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-YNSR, USN
ND07-01076

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070731                                       Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION       Authority: MILPERSMAN 3640420

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Rea son change :

Applicant’s Issues:       1. Request to wear the uniform honorably again.
                           2. Post – Employed and law abiding citizen (no docs).


Decision

 By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT MARTIAL CONVICTION .
Date: 20 08 0117                  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. 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 ( ): The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re characterization of a discharge . However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the servi ce. Normally, to permit relief a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. O utstanding 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 stated in his letter to the board that he is employed and has lived as a law abiding citizen since his discharge in support of his argument for an upgrade based on post-service conduct . The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the 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. The Board determined that the Applicant’s unsubstantiated statements did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and clemency was not approved .


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19870528 - 19870824                          Active: 19870825 - 19910822
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19910823               Years Contracted : 2 ; Extension: 43 months                 Date of Discharge: 19980310      
Length of Service : 07 Yrs 06 Mths 22 D ys                                                       Lost Time : 184 days
 Education Level:         Age at Enlistment: 26     AFQT: 56          Highest Rank /Rate : YN2
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 3.9 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.9 ( 4 )                 OTA: 4.0 (4)      
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM, SSDR, SWASM (w/ Bronze Star), Battle “E” Ribbon, Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Unit Commendation, Navy Achievement Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal      


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

 19910823:        Applicant reenlisted aboard USS MISSOURI (BB 63).

19920330:        Applicant awarded Navy Achievement Medal at HSL 47.
19940713:        NJP – Violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 0800 19940602), 91 (willfully disobey, 19940602), and 134 (failure to pay just debts, 19940505).
          Awarded – FOP (1/2 months pay for 2 months, suspended for si x months) and Extra duties (45 days).

19950123:        Charges pre ferred to Special Court Martial.

19950130:        Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0745.

19950301:        Applicant declared a deserter. Remarks, “YN2 J_ (Applicant) fled to avoid trial by court martial. He has been know n to use altered military ID card.”

19950309:        Applicant apprehended at 1920 by civil authorities in San Diego, CA.
19950309:        Applicant to pre-trial confinement, NAS Miramar brig.
19950424:        Special Court Martial.

19950618:        From NAS Miramar brig. Assigned to TPU San Diego, Ca.
19950714 :        NJP – Viol ations of UCMJ Art icles 86 (unauthorized absence, place of duty on 19950705) and 134 (communicating a threat on 19950711) .

19950814:        Administratively transferred to NAMALA, Washington, DC.

19980310:        Applicant discharged.

Discharge Process

 Charges and Specification s: Article 107 (false official statement); Article 123a (insufficient funds, nine specifications) ; Article 134 (dishonorably fail to pay , four specifications) ; Article 86 (unauthorized absence, 37 days, apprehended); Article 89 (disrespect to a commissioned officer); Article 123 (forgery); Article 134 (communicating a threat)
Preferred: 19950123       Court-martial: 19950424   Findings: Guilty of Article s : 86, 89, 107, 123, 123a, and 134      
Sentence: BCD; Conf six months ; RIR to E-1 ; FOP $300/month for six months ; CA action: 19950811
NC&PB Action: NONE                        
Appellate Review Complete: 19971218       BCD ordered executed: 19980310 by SSPCMCO No. 9501768      
Applicant Discharged: 19980310


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 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 14 Dec 98, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF COURT-MARTIAL
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m (7) (a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .



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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-01005

    Original file (ND00-01005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION of Transportation (FAA) Mechanic License issued 2 March 1999 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 810504 - 851210 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 800907 - 810503 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 851211 Date of Discharge: 900309 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 04 02 29 (Doesn't exclude UA and confinement time.) 881013: Special Court Martial.Charge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601085

    Original file (ND0601085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    19920818: U. S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, approved both the findings and the sentence of the Applicant’s Special Court-Martial case of 19920111. Elements of Discharge: [BCD] Record of Trial Complete: Date Charges Preferred: 19911223 Date Charges Referred to Special Court-Martial: 19911224 Trial Date: 19920111Applicant requested BCD: Date Applicant to Confinement: 19920127Date Applicant from Confinement: 19920318Date Applicant to Voluntary Appellate Leave: 19920406NMCCA...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00168

    Original file (ND00-00168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is my hope that the review board will merit clemency based upon my post-service conduct. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s first issue states: “It is my hope that when taking into consideration my overall performance marks the review board will evaluate my discharge as inequitable.” The applicant was discharged with a Bad Conduct...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500248

    Original file (ND0500248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    2: "After a review of the Former Service Members (FSM) DD Form 293 Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States and all of the evidence assembled for review, we continue to note the contention of the appellant in her request for a discharge upgrade of her current discharge of Bad conduct to that of Honorable.The FSM served on active service from January 6, 1992 to March 11, 1994 at which time she was discharged for court martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700008

    Original file (ND0700008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Article 121: Wrongful appropriate. Article 121: Wrongful appropriate. 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, Articles92 (Disobeying a lawful written order), 95 (Disorderly conduct), 107 (False official statement), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance), 113 (Misbehavior of a sentinel) and 134 (Disorderly conduct).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00244

    Original file (ND04-00244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 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. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT 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 Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200426

    Original file (ND1200426.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19871207 - 19880814Active:19880815 - 19920812 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19920813Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: Years17MONTHS ExtensionDate of Discharge:19980310Highest Rank/Rate:AS2Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 26 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 69EvaluationMarks:Performance:4.0(7)Behavior:4.0(8)OTA: 3.98Awards and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700564

    Original file (MD0700564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00725

    Original file (ND02-00725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant's Personal Letter to the Board dtd Feb 13, 2002 (3 pages) Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd Oct 9, 1989 Letter of Commendation from CO, USS GERMANTOWN, dtd 18 Nov 89 Applicant's Enlisted Performance Evaluation Reports (7) Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00997

    Original file (ND03-00997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) DD Form 149 Letter from D. L. K___, Board for Correction of Naval Records to MS K____ S. J___ PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970530 - 970729 COG Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of...