Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801029
Original file (ND0801029.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080315
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)      20010427 - 20010508              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20010509      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20030912
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 04 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 43
Highest Rank /Rate : AA     Evaluation M arks: Performance: 2.7 ( 3 )     Behavior: 3.2.. ( 3 )        OTA: 2.50
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): , , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :
20020 22 1 : Art icle 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) .
Awarded - , Susp - .

20030105 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order/regulation) .
Awarded - , , . Susp - .

20030 820 : Art icle 112a (Wrongful use/possession fo r a controlled substance) .
Awarded - , . Susp - .

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 28 April 2005, Article 1910-146, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Drug Abuse .

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 92 and 112a.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. 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 .
Discussion

 Issue 1: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. 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 hel d accountable for his actions based on youth or 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 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 92, 112a, and 121. Violations of Articles 112a and 121 are considered serious offenses, 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 instead for an administrative discharge. 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.

It should also be noted the Applicant was 23 years old at the time of his enlistment, 5 years older than the average member enlisting in the service. Additionally, his offenses spanned a period from February 2002 until August 2003. At the time of his last offense for drugs he was 25 years old. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate based on the foundation the Applicant’s misconduct was due to youth and immaturity.

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 | MD0801547

    Original file (MD0801547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).Discussion :().The Applicant regrets the mistakes he made while on active duty and desires to upgrade his discharge.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 Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800911

    Original file (MD0800911.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: - Record of Trial dated 29 July 1994 Related to Post-Service Period: None DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Clemency. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801758

    Original file (ND0801758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested his discharge characterization be upgraded to an “Honorable”. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the offenses committed; 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800791

    Original file (MD0800791.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801604

    Original file (ND0801604.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 Applicant submitted a statement with his DD-293 Application claiming employment, education efforts, and participation in his church and in other community service. The Board determined the characterization...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801692

    Original file (MD0801692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any other supporting documents in his behalf. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801608

    Original file (ND0801608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the aforementioned evidence of drug abuse the Board determined the separation and characterization of service to be proper and the evidence of inservice performance was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct committed by the Applicant and the awarded discharge was appropriate. 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801220

    Original file (ND0801220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801771

    Original file (MD0801771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service, including Good Conduct Medal.4. The NDRB determined Applicant’s characterization of service was properly considered by the Administrative Discharge Board and a change would be inappropriate. The Applicant is directed to contact the Veteran’s Administration at 1-888-422-4551and/or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at 1-800-962-0648 for further information regarding this issue.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801745

    Original file (ND0801745.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative separation board ultimately recommended he should be separated from the Navy with an “Under Other Than Honorable ” discharge.The NDRB found, after a thorough review of the former service member’sSummary of Service, Service and Medical Records, Discharge Process and additional evidence submitted by his family that as a result of his confirmed bipolar condition and the mitigating factors of his emotional distress, relief was warranted. The Board determined an upgrade in the...