Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801015
Original file (ND0801015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-RMSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080409
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT-
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19870720 - 19880705 ELS                   Active:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19891113 - 19891205

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19891206      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19930413
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 16 D ys      Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 49
Highest Rank /Rate : RMSM   Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.4 ( 6 )   Behavior: 3.3 ( 7 )         OTA: 3.40
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM , SSDR(2) , SASM w/2 bronze stars , JMU(3) , NUC , USCGSOSR

NJPs :    
19900510 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0700, 19900416 until 1830, 19900418 (2 DAYS) .
Awarded : , , . Susp - .
19910909 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0630, 19910819 until 1225, 19910828 (9 DAYS) .
Awarded : , . Susp - .
19920512 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0700, 19920206 until 1140, 199205 0 4 (88 DAYS ) .
Awarded : , , . Susp - .
19930115 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0630, 19921230 until 2200, 19930111 (12 DAYS ).
 Awarded : 30 DAYS CCU. Susp - .
19930224 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence ) 0630, 19930218 until 1130, 19930219 (1 DAY ).
Awarded : , . Susp - .

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .
19900510: For you were found guilty at OIC’s NJP this date of violation of UCMJ article 86-unauthor ized absence
 for a period of about 2 days.
19911224: For unauthorized absence-failure to go to appointed place at appointed time.
19920515 : For failure to show up for work, failure to present a clean military/appearance .






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 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 21 July 1994), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .

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 86 (more than 30 Days) .






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

Applicant’s Issues

 1 . Service benefits.
2. Immature at time of Navy service.

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 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning regarding .

Issue 2: (Equity ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. 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 three retention warnings and five nonjudicial punishments for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice, Article 86 . Violations of Article 86 (more than 30 days) is considered a serious offense, punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and up to imprisonment if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted for an administrative discharge instead.

The Applicant contends his mitigates his misconduct. While he may feel this was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the 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 youth or immaturity . Additionally, it was noted the Applicant enlisted in the Navy when he was 21 years of age; 3 years older than most members upon enlistment.

When a service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. An 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. The Board determined an upgrade, even to a “General (Under Honorable Conditions), would be inappropriate based on the frequency of the violations 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 | MD0801159

    Original file (MD0801159.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 | ND0801018

    Original file (ND0801018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the in service conduct was not mitigated based on limited post service supporting documentation and an upgrade would be inappropriate at this time.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 review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900318

    Original file (ND0900318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends the characterization of service he received upon discharge should be based on his first enlistment and thus he requests a “General (Under Honorable Conditions).” For his first enlistment, the Applicants service was characterized as “Honorable.” The Applicant reenlisted on 5 December 2003 for 4 more years, which was 7 months before his first enlistment would have expired.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800939

    Original file (MD0800939.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    19960212:For violation of terms of restriction awarded at NJP on 19951207.19960612:For violation Article 86, unauthorized absence 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701075

    Original file (ND0701075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. Appeal denied 19921002: Vacated previously suspended punishment due to continued misconduct.19921002: NJP – Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, three specifications): 0630 19920919 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920922 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920923 Awarded - FOP ($100/month for two...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800896

    Original file (ND0800896.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 based on 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800992

    Original file (ND0800992.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As no issues were submitted by the Applicant, the Board conducted a general review of the discharge and discharge process. Therefore, relief is 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800951

    Original file (MD0800951.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 | ND0801213

    Original file (ND0801213.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 the characterization of service received, "Other Than Honorable", was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801180

    Original file (ND0801180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the severity and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant and the lack of mitigating factors, the Board determined the “Under Other Than Honorable” discharge was the most appropriate characterization of service and 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant...