Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800693
Original file (ND0800693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AT2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080221
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to: AND
                                                      CHANGE REENTRY CODE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19850627 - 19860121              Active:          19860122 - 19920120 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19920121      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19941110
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 20 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 81
Highest Rank /Rate : AT2    Evaluation marks: Performance: 3.6 ( 3 )     Behavior: 3.5 ( 3 )          OTA: 3.67
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle , Pistol , , , (2 ND ) , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs: 2
         19860904: Art 121 (Larceny)       Sentence – FOP, EPD                       Susp: None
         19880706: Art 111 (Drunk Driving) Sentence – 45 Day RESTR,RIR, FOP       Susp: RIR
SPCMs:  
         19940525 : Art 128 (Assault on a petty officer) ; Art 91 (Disrespect) . Sentence - FOP, RESTR .

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. Reenlistment o pportunity.
2. Change n arrative r eason.
3 . Isolated i ncident.
4. Post s ervice.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0 612             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 , , regarding .

: ( ) . For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation as requested. The MilPersMan designates specific phraseology to be used in block 28 of the DD-214 . In the Applicant’s case t he separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual. The Applicant was properly processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600 for the period in question directs Block 28 contain the word “MISCONDUCT” when separating under these conditions.

Issues 3 and 4: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant stated that his discharge was based on one isolated incident and that post service factors mitigate his misconduct. Despite a service member’s prior record of se rvice certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. When the service of a member of the Naval Service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. d ischarge 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. 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, course completion certificates and employment licenses as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, evidence of a drug free existence, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 service was marred by his violation of UCMJ Article 91 and 128 , which constitutes the “commission of a serious offense” discharge basis . T he Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of the Naval Service and f alls far short of w hat is required for an upgrade in the 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, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found








Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996, 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 s 91 and 128 .



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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700228

    Original file (ND0700228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The summary of service clearly documents the Applicant’stwo NJP’s for violations of UCMJ Articles86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), and 128 (assault). For the edification of the Applicant, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to “ Administrative Separation” as requested. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700541

    Original file (ND0700541.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s summary of service clearly documents the Applicants misconduct resulting in a civilian conviction and four nonjudicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 86 (unauthorized absence, four specifications), 92 (failure to obey), 107 (false official statement, two specifications) and 128 (assault). 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700449

    Original file (ND0700449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violations of Articles 92 and 128 constitute the “commission of a serious offense”, which forms the basis for discharge in this case. The Applicant was properly processed for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 3630600 (for the period in question) directs that Block 28 contain the phrase “Misconduct – commission of a serious offense” when separating under these conditions.Since no other Narrative Reason...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700783

    Original file (ND0700783.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19830216 - 19830217 Active: 19830218 - 19870122 19870123 - 19901030 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19901031 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19930820 Length of Service: 02 Yrs 09 Mths 20...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700942

    Original file (ND0700942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20080103Location:Washington D.C Representation: Discussion Issues 1 -2: 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’s service was marred by one discharge warning and two non-judicial punishments for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (Failure to obey a direct order), Article 107 (False Official Statement), Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700253

    Original file (ND0700253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date Applicant Responded to Notification:19910515 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19910603) Separation Authority (date): BUPERS WASHINGTON DC (19910617)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19920416 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700589

    Original file (ND0700589.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented. At this time, the Applicant has not provided such documentation for the Board to consider.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700836

    Original file (ND0700836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1.Reenlist in California Army National Guard2.Inequitable because based on one incident in 32 months of 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800832

    Original file (MD0800832.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701169

    Original file (MD0701169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF 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. ” 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 date of discharge. Additionally, the Board...