Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801123
Original file (ND0801123.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080416
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: NONE                                       Active:            19940202 - 19940401
                                                                        19940401 - 19940601
                                                                        19940601 - 19950621
                                                                        19970817 - 19990421

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19990720      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20011217
Length of Service : Yrs M on ths 28 D a ys          Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 35
Highest Rank /Rate : MSSN   Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )     Behavior: 2.5 ( 2 )          OTA: 3.09
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle , , ASR , SSDR (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF : UA: 20011102-20011217 (46 days) , d ischarged in absentia.

NJPs :
20010507 : Art icle 128 (Assault).
Awarded : . Susp : .

20010929 : Art icle 86 (NFIR).
 Article 87 (NFIR).
Awarded : , , . Susp: .

S CMs :   

SPCMs:  

C C :      

Retention Warnings:
20010507 : For violation of UCMJ Article 128 .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 99 07 20 ”
         “ 02 04 28 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, 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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 21 August 2002,
Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - 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 s 87 and 128.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Unfair d ischarge.
Decision

Date : 20 08 0 911             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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 s , regarding .

Issue 2 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant implies he was treated unfairly by his command. 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 bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support h is issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated him unfairly . The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning and two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Articles 86, 87, and 128. Violations of UCMJ Article 87 and 128 are consider ed serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial . The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. 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 . The Board determined an upgrade to “Hon orable” would be inappropriate based on the term 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900128

    Original file (ND0900128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801391

    Original file (ND0801391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the misconduct represented significant negative conduct and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade to “Honorable” 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,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701140

    Original file (MD0701140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of misconduct in service was sufficient to warrant separation on that basis with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001343

    Original file (MD1001343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary : After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical record entries, his testimony and additional documentation, along with discharge process, the NDRB found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall , however, the narrative reason for separation shall MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900410

    Original file (ND0900410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801496

    Original file (ND0801496.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 provided The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900526

    Original file (ND0900526.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the violations committed and an upgrade based on a claim he was unable to complete alcohol treatment 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700067

    Original file (MD0700067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified: 19940831Basis for Discharge: due to: Least Favorable Characterization: Commanding Officer’s Intended Recommendation: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19940902 Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of DocumentsSubmit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board (19941011)Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19940902)SJA review (date): (19941114)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 3D MARINE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700783

    Original file (ND0700783.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19830216 - 19830217 Active: 19830218 - 19870122 19870123 - 19901030 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19901031 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19930820 Length of Service: 02 Yrs 09 Mths 20...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900411

    Original file (ND0900411.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB 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 decisional...