Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800560
Original file (ND0800560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080125
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN (commision of a serious offense)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19990625 - 20000612              Active:          20000613 - 20021031
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20021101      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20061023
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 23 D ys      Education Level: 12       Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 84
Highest Rank /Rate : EM1    Evaluation marks: Performance: 4.0 (5)    Behavior: 3.0 (5)         OTA: 3.51
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NEM (2) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
         200606 22 : Art(s) 123 (Forgery); 123a ( Uttering checks without funds) ; 134 (Uttering worthless checks) .
         Awarded - Susp -

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .

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)

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 20000613 TO 20021031 ”
The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Veterans Benefits ( G.I. Bill) .
2. Applicant claims he asked to be discharged due to financial obligation to care for his family and not due to his mast case .
3 . Applicant claims he did nothing to warrant the type of discharge received.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0430             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

 : 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 specifically the paragraph concerning Veterans Benefits.

Issue 2 ( ) : The Applicant contends his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his " financial obligation to his family members ." While he may feel his obligation to his family was the underlying cause of his discharge , the record clearly reflects willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Board determined the Applicant ’ s discharge, based on the seriousness of his charges, was in accordance with the standards of Naval discipline and was warranted.

Issue 3 ( ): When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as “ honorable ” . A n “ under other than honorable conditions ” discharge is warranted when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member. T he Applicant ’ s service was marred by one non - judicial punishment proceeding for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles : 123 ( F orgery) ; 123a ( U ttering checks without sufficient funds) ; and 134 ( U ttering worthless checks failing to maintain funds) . 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. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.

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

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 123 , 123a and 134 .


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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301399

    Original file (ND1301399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief granted.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 change to. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700070

    Original file (MD0700070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, as approved, was appropriate for the offenses he committed.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. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600214

    Original file (ND0600214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800949

    Original file (MD0800949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: - Record of Trial from 10 May & 6 July 2001 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545

    Original file (ND0501545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-00930

    Original file (MD99-00930.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD99-00930 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990630, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. History Iwas accused and convicted, at Office Hours, of Article 123a - Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.While serving my punishment two (2) days later, I was charged with Article 90 - Willfully disobeying an order. Not appealed.910919: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 90:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600865

    Original file (ND0600865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00865 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20060614. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active: USN 19930409 - 19950509 HON Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700252

    Original file (ND0700252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service,was marred by two brief periods of Unauthorized Absence, one retention warning, one nonjudicial punishment for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 123a [Uttering checks without sufficient funds (4 specifications)], and the commission of a serious offense (Armed Robbery). Recommendation on Characterization: BY Commanding Officer...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800254

    Original file (MD0800254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Concerning his second claim, since he already received NJP for uttering worthless checks and also received a retention warning counseling, the Applicant should have been more watchful of his account balance before he wrote additional bad checks. After a 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 found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800977

    Original file (MD0800977.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the post service documentation and statements provided by the Applicant and did not mitigate the in service misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade. ” 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...