Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801038
Original file (ND0801038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MS3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080410
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19941104 - 19950117              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19950118      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19990727
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 10 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 53
Highest Rank /Rate : MS3    Evaluation M arks: Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )     Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )          OTA: 2.43
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): JMUC HSM OSR(2) CGMUC GCM NDSM

NJPs :    
19990311 : Art icle 91 (Disrespect to a Chief Petty Officer) ,
         Art icle 92 (Dereliction of duty).
 Awarded : Susp -

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings: .
19990311 : For CO’s NJP held on 19990311 for VUCMJ, Article 91, Disrespect to a Chief Petty Officer and violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Dereliction of duty .

19990713 : For you are not in compliance with OPNAV 1740/6 Family Care Plan certificate for the following reason :
 Unable to perform duties because of parenthood, unable to deploy because parenthood and you are not
 world-wide assignable or deployable .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 1910-124 ”
        
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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 21, effective 1 September 1998 to
26 August 2001, Article 1910-124, Separation by reason of Convenience of the Government - Parenthood.
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 91 and 92 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Service b enefits
2. Post service conduct .

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 PARENTHOOD or CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN .
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 r egarding .

: ( ) . 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 record was marred by 1 non-judicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91 and Article 92. These are considered serious violations and could warrant 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 separation.

The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant ’ s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. However, 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 the service. 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 claims she is enrolled in college to pursue her Bachelor and Masters degrees. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade. 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 characterization of service received, “ General (Under Honorable Conditions ) ”, was an appropriate characterization considering the t ime served and the seriousness of the UCMJ viola tions involved ; d isrespect to a Chief Petty Officer and dereliction of duty within the naval service disrupts the very foundation of leadership, authority, good order and discipline upon which every command is based. The Board determined base d on the lack of documentation provid ed 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 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0902563

    Original file (ND0902563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical 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 Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801336

    Original file (ND0801336.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 evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found The Board determined an upgrade to Honorable would be appropriate. ” 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 NDRB...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300837

    Original file (ND1300837.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901482

    Original file (ND0901482.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record indicates that the Applicant’s request for discharge was approved by her commanding officer and she was separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. ” 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 PARENTHOOD. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700442

    Original file (ND0700442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The violation of USCM Article 112a forms the basis for the Applicants administrative discharge based on misconduct due to drug abuse. ” 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600235

    Original file (ND0600235.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00235 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051116. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to “ PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN. Issues, as stated Applicant’s issues, as stated on the application and attached letter: “ Upgrade of change is requested Because I would like to still have the opportunity to fight...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600892

    Original file (ND0600892.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Equity – Quality of service: The Applicant contends that this discharge should be upgraded because he has Honorable discharges for his service from 6/89 to 6/93.While the Board acknowledges the Applicant’s previous honorable discharges, the period of service under review is the period of service wherein the Applicant committed misconduct and was discharged. The names,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900581

    Original file (ND0900581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and 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 the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100826

    Original file (ND1100826.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801337

    Original file (ND0801337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violation 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the...