Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701213
Original file (ND0701213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20070911
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 1910-140

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20040303 - 20040914              Active:         
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20040915      Period of enlistment : Years Months    Date of Discharge: 20061026
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 12 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 37
Highest Rank /Rate : NFIR   Evaluation marks: Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )     Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )          OTA: 2.33
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /Confinement :

NJPs :     NFIR
        
Retention Warnings: NFIR
        

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)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment Opportunities
2. Applicant was innocent and will take a polygraph to prove his innocence
3 . Racial discrimination and family issues impaired his ability to serve
4. Post Service

Decision

Date: 20 08 0404             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .
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 Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue s 2 & 3: ( ). The Applicant implies that he was innocent of his misconduct, that racial discrimination and family issues impaired his ability to serve. 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 ridicule or discipline. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 4: ( ). The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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, good conduct, or favorable endorsements in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding 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 provided his statement of post service accomplishments to include showing leadership at work, participating in church organizations, and maintaining a flawless police record. . The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable employment record, documentation of educational pursuits, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board found that the Applicant's undocumented claims of good post service conduct did not mitigate the circumstances that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

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 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .
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 | ND0901119

    Original file (ND0901119.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 (Failure to obey order, regulation) ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901011

    Original file (ND0901011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. The Board also determined that an upgrade to Honorable was not warranted based on a review of the Applicant’s statement on his DD Form 293, the record of evidence, and the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct as outlined in the incident complaint report.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401268

    Original file (MD1401268.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801223

    Original file (ND0801223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the documentation, the Board determined that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge based on clemency would be unwarranted and 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 Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800629

    Original file (ND0800629.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the Applicant’s case the commanding officer appropriately exercised his discretion in denying the Applicant’s request for religious accommodations while on restriction.In response to the allegation the NJP was too harsh, and the command failed to transport the Applicant to medical appointments, the Board also concurs with the Naval Inspector General’sfindings of 20070509, wherein, it is noted the Applicant failed to exercise his right to appeal the NJP within the time limit prescribed and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902278

    Original file (ND0902278.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101905

    Original file (ND1101905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902060

    Original file (ND0902060.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. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001006

    Original file (ND1001006.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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 years from the date of discharge. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801757

    Original file (ND0801757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and 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 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...