Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800501
Original file (ND0800501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YNSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080103
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19970306 - 19970915                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19970916     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 19980521
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 06 D a y s        Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 38
Highest Rank /Rate : YNSR   Evaluation M arks: Performance: NFIR       Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NONE

Periods of UA : , listed as unauthorized absence on previous Decisional Document based on DD
Form 214 , Block 29

NJP : S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

Previous ndrb document review decision

 NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20060406
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: ND05-01324
NDRB Documentary Review Findings: Proper as issued and that no change warranted

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 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) :
Applicant Testified:
Applicant Available for Questions:
Witnesses:
Observers: Air Force Discharge Review Board Members


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge too harsh for the misconduct committed .

Decision

Date: 20081103 Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant ’s representative contends the discharge was wrongful and inequitable because it was too harsh for his misconduct . 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. The Applicant’s record which was available for review is marred by a n unauthorized absence for 20 days. The Applicant admitted to the unauthorized absence at his NDRB personal hearing and indicated he returned after being assured by his congresswoman he would not be arrested. After reviewing the Applicant's entire service record, the Board found the characterization of the Applicant's discharge as “Under O ther T han H onorable ” was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances allowing for presumption on the Navy’s behalf.

Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question. No impropriety or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment. Additionally, 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 the service. Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record ; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service ; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities ; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card company’s, or other financial institutions; and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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.

T he Applicant’s post-service accomplishment as evidenced by his unofficial transcript from the University of Maryland was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct which resulted in his discharge from the Navy. Ther e was nothing in the records, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate

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

Dissenting opinion
Two of the Board members concurred with the Applicant ’s c onten tion that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the evidence of record. The record reflects the Applicant served on active duty for 8 months and 6 days and was administratively dischar ged with an other than honorable discharge based on misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The only evidence of misconduct contained in the record and admitted to by the Applicant at the personal appearance hearing was a 20 day unauthorized absence which is noted on the DD - 214 . Based on the lack of evidence of disciplinary action taken by the command (i.e. no NJP, courts martial or separation in lieu of court martial, the short duration of unauthorized absence and the fact that the Applicant was on active duty for less than 9 months, and post service conduct these board


members are opined this discharge is too harsh and therefore inequitable . Accordingly, both Board members voted to upgrade the Applicant’s characterization to “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
29 March 2000, 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 86 , Unauthorized absence over 30 days .


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 or is referred to a court martial 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 other medical related reasons. 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | ND0801185

    Original file (ND0801185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence in the record or presented by the Applicant to support his contention that the leading yeoman was responsible for the “Other Than Honorable Discharge” characterization of his discharge.A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900299

    Original file (ND0900299.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, 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 with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800985

    Original file (ND0800985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from 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 Board determined based on the limited documentation provided a change would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101105

    Original file (ND1101105.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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101657

    Original file (ND1101657.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation, 2 specifications).The record also reflects the Applicant was on unauthorized absence from 22 December 1998 - 30 April 1999 for 129...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000719

    Original file (ND1000719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge characterization is too harsh for the misconduct of record. When notified of the administrative separation process using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and to request an administrative board.The Applicant provided documentation that included:, , ,post-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902361

    Original file (ND0902361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900652

    Original file (ND0900652.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a (Drug abuse) is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800783

    Original file (MD0800783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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): -Receipt of payment for Substance Abuse Treatment Previous ndrb document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800738

    Original file (ND0800738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “ Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing andis directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs concerning Additional Reviews and Automatic Upgrades .Should the Applicant feel...