Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701182
Original file (ND0701182.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MMFN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20070831
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE)
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN
1910-142

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)     20050624 - 20060205              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20060206      Period of enlistment : Years Months     Date of Discharge: 20061103
Length of Service: Yrs Mths 28 D ys     Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 97
Highest Rank/Rate: MM3    Evaluation marks: Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )    Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )         OTA: 2.17
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle , Pistol

Periods of UA/Confinement:

NJPs:   
         20060921 : Art(s) 92 . Awarded - . Susp -
        

Retention Warnings:

         20060608 : For inappropriate personal behavior .

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 Representation:              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)



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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Due process errors in the investigating, reporting, and processing of the Applicant’s NJP.
2.
Applicant not offered counseling support or referral services
3. Applicant was not removed from his workspace
4. Discharge based on a minor incident
5. Service record


Decision

Date: 2008 0124             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
s 1-3: ( ). Th e Applicant implies that he did not receive proper d ue process during the investigating, reporting, and processing of the his NJP, that he was not offered counseling support or referral services, and that he was not removed from his workspace after the incident was brought to light. 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 his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that the command unfairly singled him out for discipline. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue
s 4-5: ( ). The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant sexually harassed other Navy personnel. . The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is c onduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions. When a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A general ( under honorable conditions ) discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. C ertain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant’s service was marred by a retention warning for inappropriate behavior and the finding of guilty at one nonjudicial punishment for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ), Article 92 (Failing to obey a lawful regulation). A v iolation of Article 92 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.

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











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, Article 92.

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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700663

    Original file (ND0700663.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 Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20010912 - 20010927Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010928Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060518Length of Service: 04 Yrs 07Mths21 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201335

    Original file (ND1201335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:EXPIRATION OF ACTIVE OBLIGATED SERVICE Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030228 - 20030715Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20030716Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070629Highest Rank/Rate: AM3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 14 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 80EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.8(5)Behavior:2.8(5)OTA:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501031

    Original file (MD1501031.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700887

    Original file (ND0700887.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sentence - .Retention Warnings: .20041005: For underage drinking, in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ.. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801036

    Original file (ND0801036.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board did determine the Applicant’s discharge process contained administrative errors which resulted in the erroneous use of “Pattern of Misconduct” as the narrative reason for discharge. By a unanimous vote the Board determined the characterization of service should remain “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” and the narrative reason for discharge should change to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800427

    Original file (ND0800427.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800279

    Original file (ND0800279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge was inequitable because of youth and immaturity Decision Date: 20080306Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion Issue 1: ().The Board reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801912

    Original file (ND0801912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the repeated incidents of misconduct; an 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800500

    Original file (ND0800500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Narrative Reason for Discharge:Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN3630600 An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701208

    Original file (ND0701208.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...