Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801173
Original file (ND0801173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FCSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080506
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19841128 - 19850324                 Active: 19850325 - 19910523 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19910524      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension Date of Discharge: 19930430
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 06 D a ys         Education Level: 12 1/2   Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 82
Highest Rank /Rate : FC3    Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.6 ( 5 )    Behavior: 3.2 ( 5 )         OTA: 3.52
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): SSDR (2) CGUC CGMUC GCA CAR NDSM

NJPs :
19930113 : Art icle 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful order) ,
Article 128 (Assault) , 2 specifications .
Awarded : . Susp ended: .

Retention Warnings:
19920903: For Naval Medical Clinic, Philadelphia investigation and letter dates 22 JUL 92.
19921210 : For an established pattern of failure to pay just debts .
19930311 : For violation of UCMJ Article 134 and the Navy’s policy of Zero Tolerance of Sexual Harassment on 11
February ’93, in that you made an unprofessional statement of a sexual nature to another Male Pettty
Officer in a loud voice during a command gathering. The statement was graphic and was made in close
proximity to several female members of the command.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 19850325 ”
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM
19850325 UNTIL 1991052 3 ”
        
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 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 21 Jul y 1994, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 92, Failure to obey order or regulation and Article 128, Assault.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. A General discharge was recommended by the commanding officer .

Decision

Date: 20 08 0911   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The A pplicant contends his discharge should be upgraded to honora ble because a “G eneral (Under Honorable Conditions) ” was recommended by his commanding officer (CO) and approved by headquarters. The Applicant also contends he was either not informed or misinformed of his actual separation. 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 . As evidenced in message traffic, reference NAVSHIPYD Philadelphia Pa, DTG 041200Z Feb 93, the Applicant was informed via the n otification p rocedu re he was being administratively processed for separation on the basis of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (COSO) . He was afforded and waived all rights except the right to consult with counsel and submit a statement. The subject message was forwarded by the Applicant’s CO to BUPERS recommending approval of the separation with a “G eneral (Under Honorable Conditions) ” discharge. BUPERS responded , reference BUPERS Washington DC message DTG 231914Z MAR 93, inquiring as to whether the CO ’s message was in error because they used the n otification board procedure with a least favorable characterization of “G eneral (Under Honorable Conditions) instead of the admin istrative board procedure with a least favorable characteristic of “O ther T han H onorable ” ( OTH ) .

In the Applicant’s record was also a no tice of an administrative board procedure of 12 February 1993, where the Applicant was informed of the proposed separation based on misconduct due to COSO with a least favorable characterization of OTH . The Applicant signed this notice on 12 February 1993 acknowledging receipt and understanding its’content. Based on a review of the available records, th e Board determined there appears to be a discrepancy on the date of the notice of separation that is referenced in the message traffic NAVYSHIPYD 041200Z Feb 93 that it is subsequent to the date of the message . Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Applicant was notified of administrative processing via the administrative board procedure with the least favorable characterization of OTH ; he was notified of his right to seek the advice of counsel prior to signing and he did acknowledge an understanding of the contents of the document he signed. Based on the foregoing evidence and the seriousness of the offenses committed by the Applicant , especially the assault on his wife and child, the Board determined 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700083

    Original file (ND0700083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified:19930616Reason for Discharge - Least Favorable Characterization Authorized: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19930623Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of DocumentsSubmit Statement(s) (date)Administrative Board GCMCA Review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19930618)Separation Authority (date):BUPERS WASHINGTON DC (19930630)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601170

    Original file (ND0601170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. 19960305: BUPERS directed USS FIFE to reprocess Applicant for administrative separation for misconduct due to drug abuse using administrative board procedures. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601185

    Original file (ND0601185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-GSMFR, USNND06-01185Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060908Characterization of Service: Narrative Reason for Separation: OTHER PHYSICAL/MENTAL CONDITIONS-PERSONALITY DISORDERSDischarge Authority: MILPERSMAN3620200Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: USS O’BANNON (DD 987)Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Review Requested: Representation: Decision: Date of Decision: 20070628 Location of Board: Washington D.C....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601147

    Original file (ND0601147.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:19970218Reason for Discharge due to: Sexual behavior which deviates from socially acceptable standards Statement that you are a homosexual or bisexual.Least Favorable Characterization: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19970218Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Recommendation of Commanding Officer...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601172

    Original file (ND0601172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Complete Service Record: Complete Medical Record: Complete Discharge Package: Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: Issue(s) 1: 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. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:19921008Reason for Discharge due to: due to: Least Favorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601166

    Original file (ND0601166.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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that By a vote of X-X the Characterization shall By a vote of X-X the Narrative Reason shall Date of Decision: 20071017 Location of Board: Washington D.C. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified:19921201Reason for Discharge DUE TO Least Favorable Characterization...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700253

    Original file (ND0700253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date Applicant Responded to Notification:19910515 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19910603) Separation Authority (date): BUPERS WASHINGTON DC (19910617)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19920416 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601202

    Original file (ND0601202.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 characterization of service at discharge. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified:199100909Reason for Discharge due to: Least Favorable Characterization Authorized: OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONSDate Applicant Responded to Notification: 19910909Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700035

    Original file (ND0700035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Complete Service Record: YES Complete Medical Record: NOComplete Discharge Package: YES Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: Issue 1 (Equity): The Applicant contends that his misconduct while in the Navy is attributable to his youth and immaturity at the time. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date Notified:19950726Reason for Discharge - - Least Favorable Characterization Authorized: Date Applicant Responded to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700008

    Original file (ND0700008.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Article 121: Wrongful appropriate. Article 121: Wrongful appropriate. 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, Articles92 (Disobeying a lawful written order), 95 (Disorderly conduct), 107 (False official statement), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance), 113 (Misbehavior of a sentinel) and 134 (Disorderly conduct).