Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800628
Original file (ND0800628.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080124
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: BUPERS ORDER 2599 OF 161159ZSEP99

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R    19950512 - 19950531 To accept commission         Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Commission : 19950601      Date of Discharge: 19991119
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 19 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:
Highest Rank /Rate : LT Fitness R eports:
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
19990528 : Art icle 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman).
Art icle 134 (Fraternization). [Extracted from Fitness Report dated 19991116.]
 Awarded : No further information found in service record.

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

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)



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. GI benefits.
2. Medical misdiagnosis.
Decision

Date : 20 08 0814             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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 , specifically the paragraph concerning regarding .

Issue 2: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED: The Applicant contends his mitigate his misconduct. While he may feel this was the underlying cause of his misconduct, t he evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or he should not be held accountable for his actions based on medical issues . 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 of service was marred by for violations of UCMJ Articles 133 and 134. Violations of Articles 133 and 134 are considered serious offenses, punishable by dismissal and up to imprisonment. These violations stemmed from an inappropriate relationship the Applicant had, as an officer, with an enlisted female.
A review of the Applicant’s service military records does indicate he had an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and that he had been treated in the Alcohol Treatment Program as a self-referral , based on his drinking habits. However, these evaluations and issues all occurred after his NJP for the violations as stated above. In the military medical records the Applicant states he is worried about the relationship and fears losing the women as a result of the NJP. The Applicant also submitted documentation from The Queen’s Medical Center from 9 May 2007, approximately eight years after his discharge, showing a clinical impression of bipolar disorder. While the Queen’s Medical Center records may have documented an impression of bipolar disorder, there is nowhere in the military records such a diagnosis and the evidence of the military records all indicate the issue revolved around the inappropriate relationship, his fear and anxiety over its loss, and the NJP.

When a service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A discharge 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. As an officer, the Applicant was expected to understand the boundaries between the rank structure and more importantly those between officer and enlisted and the impact fraternization cause s between the ranks. The Board determined an upgrade or change 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











Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective
21 November 1983 until 12 December 1999, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 15 October 1981.

 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 s 133 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 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1201130

    Original file (ND1201130.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900784

    Original file (ND0900784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300351

    Original file (ND1300351.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902456

    Original file (ND0902456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USN (ROTC) 19990823 - 20010511 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20010512Age: Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20060228 Highest Rank: LTLength of Service: 04 Year(s) Month(s) 19 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:- 20050803:Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301712

    Original file (ND1301712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USN (Nurse Candidate Program) 20040108 - 20050421 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20050422Age: 20Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20091031 Highest Rank: LTJGLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:-...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400503

    Original file (ND1400503.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USNR-E20020306 - 20030624 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Appointment: 20030625Age: 29Years Contracted: Indefinite Date of Discharge: 20121031 Highest Rank: LTLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 07 Day(s) Education Level: AFQT: NFIROfficer’s Fitness reports: AvailableAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol NCM (2)NAM (3)SWMDO FMFOPeriods of UA/CONF: NJP:-...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900345

    Original file (ND0900345.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801072

    Original file (MD0801072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CA, per the requirements set out in paragraph 4003 of MCO P5800.16A (Marine Corps Manual for Legal Administration) forwarded the report of NJP to CMC (JAM), with the recommendation the applicant's letter of resignation be accepted and the Applicant be discharged with a “ General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200554

    Original file (ND1200554.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : (Decisional) () .The Applicant wants her Narrative Reason for Separation changed.The preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the finding that the Applicant did commit a violation of the UCMJ. The NDRB determined that the assigned Narrative Reason for Separation was proper and that relief based on this issue was not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401707

    Original file (ND1401707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. [Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administrative separation is mandatory.] ” 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.