Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800600
Original file (ND0800600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080207
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19910507 - 19920209                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19920210      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 199305 06
Length of Service : Y ea r M on ths 27 D a ys        Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 62
Highest Rank /Rate : FA     Evaluation M arks: Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )    Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )         OTA: 2.00
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM

NJP :
- 19930128 :       Art icle 86 (U A)
                  Art icle 92 (Failure to obey a lawful general regulation)
                  Art icle 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use of a schedule I controlled substance, marijuana and acid (LSD) ) .
          Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

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) :
                  - Time Magazine Article



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Command did not properly investigate sexual assault.
2. Drug use was done to mitigate sexual assault against her .
3. Improper conduct of administrative separation board.
4 . Drug use was self admitted to chain of command.
5. Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 2008 1117             Location: Washington D.C.       R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
Discussion
: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to mitigating circumstances which lead to her misconduct. Specifically, she contends her drug use was an intentional effort to get off of her ship following a sexual assault by a shipmate. She further contends her command did not properly investigate the sexual assault against her and acted inequitably in processing her 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. The Applicants record of service is marred by one NJP for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A) ; Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful general regulation); and Article 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use or possession of a controlled substance). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. Violations of this policy result in , at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. Violation of Article 92 is also considered a serious offense. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge. The NDRB determined the documents available in the record of evidence, including evidence submitted by the Applicant, do not show the government acted inequitably or improperly.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the only evidence against her was her own admission of drug use. The NDRB determined a voluntary admission of drug use establishes sufficient grounds for administrative discharge as long as the commanding officer believes the self-admission to be tr uthful. The NDRB determined an upgrade founded upon self-admission of drug use would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to her post-service conduct. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However , there is no law or regulation which provides a discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews . Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record ; documentation of educational pursuits; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug-free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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 evidence and provided

testimony she is a registered nurse currently working with adult psychiatric cases, advanced healthcare training, and is pursuing post-graduate education to enhance her skills. The NBRD determined the Applicant’s post-service conduct is sufficient to warrant a characterization of service upgrade to “Genera l (Under Honorable Conditions). ”

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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge, but warranted an upgraded based on post-service conduct.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 21 Jul y 1994, 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 92 and 112a.


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 | ND0801666

    Original file (ND0801666.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined due to the documented post-rehabilitation drug abuse, an upgrade was not warranted.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. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, the medical...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400026

    Original file (ND1400026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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 members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100704

    Original file (ND1100704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001541

    Original file (ND1001541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant exercised or waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board.The Applicant was separated from the U.S. Navy on 19 Oct 2006 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201322

    Original file (ND1201322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the commanding officer determines the urinalysis was conducted properly and without administrative errors and the use was wrongful,then the member shall be processed for administrative separation.Based on being found guilty of violating UCMJ Article 112a at NJP, the NDRB determined the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation was proper and no other Narrative Reason for Separation more accurately describes why the Applicant was discharged. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102170

    Original file (ND1102170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20030828 - 20030923Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20030924Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060623Highest Rank/Rate:ANLength of Service: Years Months00 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 55EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.3(3)Behavior:3.7(3)OTA: 3.5Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NDSM SSDR GWOTSM...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900117

    Original file (ND0900117.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): - Standard Form 180 - Letter from Department of Veterans Affairs - Letter from...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500010

    Original file (MD1500010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not warrant relief. 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801487

    Original file (MD0801487.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined an upgrade would be appropriate.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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200244

    Original file (ND1200244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for full veterans’ benefits.2. ” 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...