Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800997
Original file (ND0800997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ADAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080408
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (MISCONDUCT COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE).

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: NONE             Active: 19890724 – 19930113 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19930114      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19940826
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 12 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 35
Highest Rank /Rate : ADAN   Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.6 ( 1 )     Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )          OTA: 3.60
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM MUC

NJPs :     2
19940523 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0730, 19940426 to 0730, 19940428 (2 Days) ,
         Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0400, 19940518 to 0545, 19940518) (Less than 24 hours),
         Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence 0300, 19940519 to 0600, 19940519) (Less than 24 hours).
Awarded – Correctional Custody for 30 Days RIR . Susp - .

19940608 : Art icle 134 (2 Specificat ions):
                  - Specification 1: Dishonorably failed to pay a debt.
                  - Specification 2: Make and uttering a worthless check.
 Awarded - . Susp - . [Extracted from CO’s message dtd 19940729].

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .
19940106 : For letter of indebtedness received by command .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19890 724 TO 19930113 ”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.





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 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 134 , D ishonored checks (writing bad checks to the N avy E xchange) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Re enlistment opportunity.
2. Youth and i mmaturity.

Decision

Date: 20 08 0828             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 , specifically the paragraph concerning regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his "Youth and Immaturity." 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 one retention warning and two non-judicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving unauthorized absence s , failing to pay just debts, and writing worthless checks. These violations are considered serious in nature and could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

While the Applicant may feel his youth and immatur ity were the underlying cause s of his misconduct, the evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be he ld accountable for his actions because of youth or immaturity. The Board determined an upgrade based on youth and immaturity as the foundation would be inappropriate in light of the offenses committed.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800844

    Original file (MD0800844.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the seriousness of the UCMJ violations involved.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 Pertinent...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801206

    Original file (MD0801206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19981028 - 19981231Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990101Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20021231Length of Service: Yrs Mths00 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: NFIRMOS: 6672Highest Rank: Fitness Reports: Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):4.1/3.6 (10)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800982

    Original file (ND0800982.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) Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214The NDRB did note...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800086

    Original file (MD0800086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board determined an upgrade was not warranted and would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902138

    Original file (ND0902138.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Post-service conduct. The Applicant could have produced evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding that completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801229

    Original file (ND0801229.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the seriousness of the multiple violations and his length of service and amount of experience in the Navy, the Board determined the award of an “Under Other Than Honorable Condition” discharge was appropriate and an upgrade or change would be inappropriateAfter 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800533

    Original file (MD0800533.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ]6105 Counseling: 19890414:For failure to follow instructions, and failure to adhere to rules and regulations.19890630:For substandard performance and conduct in particular, writing checks with insufficient funds in your account and poor judgment.19910228:For financial irresponsibility based on your conviction after appearing in the Onslow County Court on 19910225 for writing two worthless checks totaling $29.02 in which you were found guilty Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301367

    Original file (MD1301367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants clemency. Relief denied.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 remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200054

    Original file (MD1200054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.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 remain .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members...

  • 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...