Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800985
Original file (ND0800985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080410
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) 20000331 - 20000627                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20000628      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20010111
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 22 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:      
Highest Rank /Rate : SA     Evaluation marks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR AFQT: 66
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NONE

Period of UA : 20001117-20001228 (41 Days) ,
20001010-20001012 (2 Days),
20001023-20001029 (6 Days) Unable to determine what kind of lost time , e xtracted from DD 214.

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) :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 11 July 2000 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL .

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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge characterization should have been entry level separation .
2. Reenlistment code incorrect.
3 . Post service conduct.
Decision

Date: 20 08 0821      Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 : ( ) The Applicant contends his characterization of service should be entry level since he was separated prior to completing 180 days of military service. The record reflects the Applicant served on active duty 4 months and 22 days . While on active duty he went on a 41 day unauthorized absence and upon his surrender charges were preferred against him for a special court-martial. On 29 December 2000, the Applicant requested discharge for the good of the service to escape trial by court-martial. In the request the Applicant waived his right to counsel and admitted he was guilty of the offense charged. He further certified a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions and that the characterization of service could be an “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions . ”

Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-308, members notified of intended recommendation for discharge within the first 180 days of enlistment are eligible for an uncharacterized or entry-level separation characterization of service unless there were unusual circumstances regarding a service member’s performance or conduct that merit another characterization. An “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions ” 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. T he Applicant’s service was marred by a 41 day unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86 of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice . Violation of Article 86, in excess of 30 days is considered a serious offense. 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. Therefore the Board found his “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions ” characterization appropriate and a change to an entry level separation would be inappropriate .
: The Applicant contends his reenlistment code is incorrect because he should have received an “E ntry L evel S eparation ” . The Board is opined an “Under O ther T han H onorable Conditions” discharge was appropriate in light of the Applicant’s misconduct , as discussed in the preceding paragraph. However, in regard to the reenlistment code, this is which the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , for additional information regarding s.

: ( ) The Applicant contends he has been married for approximately three years, has one daughter, and has been employed for four years at a Nissan Plant. 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. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have occurred during the discharge process for the period of enlistment in question. The Board discovered no impropriety after a review of Applicant’s case. Additionally, t here 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. Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; 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; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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 Applicant submitted documentary evidence of his enrollment in Holmes Community College and a Certification of Completion from Nissan North America, Inc. on 23 June 2006 as evidence fo r post service consideration. The Board commends the Applicant for his success with the community college and at Nissan. However, to warrant an upgrade or change to the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. 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 characterization considering the limited time served and the UCMJ violations involved.

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 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 | ND0801315

    Original file (ND0801315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900412

    Original file (ND0900412.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 issues presented 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801369

    Original file (ND0801369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record reflects the Applicant was notified of the administrative processing for separation due misconduct based on: 1) A pattern of misconduct, and 2) Commission of a serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801591

    Original file (ND0801591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An under other than honorable conditions 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.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 The Applicant’s rape charge, the basis for his discharge, was expunged. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801333

    Original file (ND0801333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).Discussion :The Applicant contends she was placed on certain medications while on active duty and with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” she would be able to get these medications from the VA. 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. In...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900202

    Original file (ND0900202.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900102

    Original file (ND0900102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :The Applicant is requesting his Re Code changed in order to reenlist in the military. 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801183

    Original file (ND0801183.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): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801611

    Original file (ND0801611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20021218 - 20030701Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030702Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050727Length of Service: Years Months26 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 48Highest Rank/Rate:ANEvaluationMarks:Performance:2.0(1) Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 1.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):SSDR NDSM GWOTEMPeriod...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900188

    Original file (ND0900188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority directed separation with an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. 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...