Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801208
Original file (ND0801208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-GSEFR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080515
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DUE TO COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 20040508 - 20041107                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20041108     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20060509
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 22 D a ys Education Level:   Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 64
Highest Rank /Rate : E1    Evaluation M arks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF : 20060314-20060410 ( 28 days)

NJPs :

S CMs :

SPCMs:  

C C :

Retention Warnings:

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:     
DD 214:         Service/ 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 Congress m ember :

Other Documentation (Describe) :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Not responsible for conduct due to a m edical issue which the Navy f ail ed to provide proper medical care for .

Decision

Date: 20 08 0925             Location: Washington D.C .         R epresentation :

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

 Issue 1 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he was not responsible for his misconduct because the Navy failed to provide proper medical treatment for his medical issue . In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence . The Applicant was discharge for the commission of a serious offense and received an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ” discharge. The Applicant provided no evidence or documentation to disprove this presumption. The record reflects a period of unauthorized absence for 28 days however, there is no NJP associated with this absence. Without further documentation the Board presumes the command acted in accordance with all established Navy procedures and DoD policy for processing the Applicant’s discharge.

W ith regard to the Applicant’s medical treatment , there is no evidence in the record nor has the Applicant produced any evidence to support his contention the Navy failed to pro vide proper medical treatment. Additionally, there is nothing in the Applicant’s record that excuses or otherwise mitigates his misconduct based on any medical condition. N or is there anything which would negate his discharge characterization . In the Applicant’s case, the Board could discern no impropriety or inequity in the discharge process and therefore it was 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800736

    Original file (ND0800736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicants may discuss benefit options directly with the veteran’s administration if they had more than one period of service and at least one of those is a fully honorable discharge.During Board reviews the government is presumed to conduct its affairs with regularity unless there is substantial credible evidence, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant, to rebut the presumption. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900187

    Original file (ND0900187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s separation was appropriate considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902387

    Original file (ND0902387.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801325

    Original file (ND0801325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the “General” discharge was properly used by the Applicant’s command 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801445

    Original file (ND0801445.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Unfortunately the Applicant’s service record was not available for the NDRB to review, and the Applicant did not submit any evidence to support his claim. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801696

    Original file (ND0801696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20020923 - 20030903Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030904Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20061206Length of Service: Years Months03 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT:NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:AC3EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle Pistol Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801107

    Original file (ND0801107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Military Personnel Manual, Article 1910-144 for the period in question directs Block 28 contain the word “MISCONDUCT (CIVIL CONVICTION)” when separating under these 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901701

    Original file (ND0901701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800700

    Original file (ND0800700.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20020716 - 20020731Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020801Period of enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070507Length of Service: Yrs Mths07 DysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:HNEvaluation marks:Performance: NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF: Types...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801289

    Original file (ND0801289.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 provided a personal statement,but as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined an upgrade was inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...