Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801140
Original file (ND0801140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AZAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080429
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)      20020928 - 20030812              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20030813      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20060609
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 27 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 31
Highest Rank /Rate : AZAN   Evaluation M arks: Performance: 4.0 ( 2 )     Behavior: 3.5 ( 2 )          OTA: 3.59
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :    
         20060303 : Art icle .
Awarded - . Susp - .

Retention Warnings:
         20060303 : For a false official statement .

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:

                  - Inquiry letter from California Representative, Honorable G.R. dated 10 March 2008.

Other Documentation (Describe) Letter from Board for Correction of Naval Records




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Wrongful separation.
Decision

Date: 20 08 06 19             Location: Washington D.C         R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall : .
Discussion

 : ( ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED . The Appli cant contends his characterization of discharge should be upgraded to H onorable because he did not have two NJP’s as required for a P attern o f M isconduct (POM) . The Applicant states he was having some financial difficulty and his master chief notified him of an administrative separation due to financial problems ; however, he was written up for a pattern of misconduct. He was opined this was wrong because he was supposed to be discharged for financial hardship. Therefore, he is requesting his discharge be changed to Honorable based on time served.

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 is marred by one retention warning and an a ward of non - judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice , Article 107 (M aking a false official statement ) . Additionally , th e service record reflects the Applicant had several outstanding debts and late payments to his creditors, overdrafts from his Navy Federal Credit Union accounts , and he had been counseled on 30 January 2006 for making fa l se statements connected with paying his debts and fail ing to pay just debts.

For the edification of the Applicant, p ursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-140, members may be separated for a POM, when during the current enlistment they have two or more NJP’s , court-martial, or civil convictions; three or more unauthorized absences , each more than 3 days, but less than 30 days; a set pattern of failure to pay just debts ; or a set pattern of failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to comply with civil court orders, decrees, or judgments concerning dependents support; and violate a NAVPERS 1070/613 retention warning. In the present case, the requirement for separation due to a POM has been met b y the aforementioned evidence of the Applicant’s failure to pay his debts and violation of his counseling .

Naval Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge. In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity and therefore considers the discharge proper and equitable. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to a POM, for f ailure to pay just debts , was the reason the Applicant was discharged. T he Board determined the Applicant’s narrative reason proper and equitable at the time of issuance. Therefore, the Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 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 .



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 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 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.

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 | ND0902471

    Original file (ND0902471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901663

    Original file (ND0901663.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902239

    Original file (MD0902239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00658

    Original file (ND03-00658.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION However, the Applicant may be eligible for certain benefits due to his honorable first enlistment.The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902217

    Original file (ND0902217.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901265

    Original file (ND0901265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Withoutpost-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.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 hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902277

    Original file (ND0902277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101332

    Original file (MD1101332.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 .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 members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001373

    Original file (ND1001373.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority reviewed the Applicant’s record of service during his current enlistment period; he determined that the Applicant’s documented misconduct of record did establish the minimum requirement for discharge based on a pattern of misconduct; that separation in the Applicant’s case was warranted; and further, that the proposed characterization of service - General (Under Honorable Conditions) - was warranted. On 14 March 2006, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000653

    Original file (ND1000653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities,and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and administrative separation process, the Board found...