Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800461
Original file (ND0800461.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080111
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600

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


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19900731 - 19901214 ELS         
Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19901215 - 19910818
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19910819               Period of enlistment : Years             Date of Discharge: 19930611
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 19 D ys      Education Level:                  Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 70
Highest Rank /Rate : AA              Evaluation marks: Performance: 1.9 ( 2 )    Behavior: 1.9 ( 1 )                  OTA: 2.40 (1)
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

Periods of UA : 19920302; 19920627-19920629 ; 19930308; 19930310-19930311 ; 19930317; 19930318 - 19930319

NJP :      19920303 : Violations of UCMJ Art icles 86 (unauthorized absence) , 113 ( misbehavior of a sentinel, 2 specifications ) ; a warded – Correctional Custody
         19920714 : Violation of UCMJ Art icle 86 (unauthorized absence); a warded – Correctional Custody and ; s usp -
         19930331 : Violation of UCMJ Art icle 86 ( unauthorized absence, 4 specifications ) ; a warded - , , and

Retention Warnings:
         19920303 : For violations of UCMJ Article s 86 and 113 (2 specs) .
         19930222 : For military performance, rating performance, reliability, military bearing and 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 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. Post service conduct – received treatment for alcohol and remain clean and sober.

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 MISCONDUCT .

Discussion

 Issue 1 ( ): 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 has received alcohol treatment and is now sober as doc umentation of his post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of alcohol treatment and a sober lifestyle, continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service .

The Applicant then was administratively processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense and by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. During the Applicant’s administrative discharge he was notified of his impending discharge and of his rights to consult counsel and be heard before an Administrative discharge board. The Applicant waived all rights and did not object to his discharge or the characterization of his service. After assuring compliance with MILPERSMAN 3630600 the separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct with an overall service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. N othing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A n other than honorable characterization of service 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. The Applicant’s service was marred by two retention warnings and three nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, 5 specifications) and 1 13 (misbehavior of a sentinel, 2 specifications) . These nonjudicial punishments form the basis for the Applicants administrative discharge based on a pattern of misconduct which is defined as t hree or more punishments during the same enlistment. For the information of the Applicant, v iolations of UCMJ Article 113 carry a penalty of a dishonorable discharge and up to a year of imprisonment for each specification if adjudicated by a court martial. The Applicant’s conduct reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade in his characterization of service.

In reviewing discharges, the Board presume s regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence ( to include evidence submitted by the Applicant ) to rebut the presumption . After a thorough review of the available evidence to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, m edical and s ervice r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess and evid ence submitted by the Applicant the Board found that

Pertinent Regulation/Law
A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 05 Mar 93 until 21 Jul 94, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 113 .

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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800547

    Original file (ND0800547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision Date: 20080404Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT DUE TO COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.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. With this information the discharge authority makes the decision of retention or separation and determines the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801505

    Original file (ND0801505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not provide any evidence, nor was there any contained in her service record, that a medical condition was the cause of her misconduct.The Applicant has requested an upgrade of her discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” , was an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800992

    Original file (ND0800992.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As no issues were submitted by the Applicant, the Board conducted a general review of the discharge and discharge process. Therefore, relief is denied.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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801604

    Original file (ND0801604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant submitted a statement with his DD-293 Application claiming employment, education efforts, and participation in his church and in other community service. The Board determined the characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900638

    Original file (ND0900638.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not complete his enlistment and therefore his request to have his official discharge documentation reflect otherwise is without merit.The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate for the offenses committed and the narrative reason was correct as issued; an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800469

    Original file (ND0800469.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) Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-01064

    Original file (MD04-01064.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During 5 months at the SOI, Camp Pendleton, CA, the Applicant’s service was marred by 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (a total of 51 days UA), 91, 92, and 113 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Marine Corps and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801507

    Original file (MD0801507.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on his Medical Officer’s professional assessment of the circumstances and the Boards thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that relief is warranted under equitable grounds even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701156

    Original file (ND0701156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and the characterization of his service. 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 9,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801749

    Original file (ND0801749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided 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:...