Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801257
Original file (ND0801257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FC3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080521
Characterization of Service Received: OTHER THAN HONORABLE
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) 19951011 - 19951101                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19951102     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 200104 26
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 25 D a ys       Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 85
Highest Rank /Rate :       FC2       Evaluation M arks: Performance:   4.0 ( 1 )          Behavior: 4.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 4.14
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NGCM NDSM AFSM SSDR ESWSBI

NJPs :
20010327 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , 5 specifications
Article 128 (Assault)
 Article 134 (Indecent assault) , 4 specifications
 Awarded : Susp ended :

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 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 .

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 , Fail to obey lawful order and Article 134 – Indecent assault.




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. One isolated incident in 65 months of service.
Decision

Date: 20 08 1009             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 Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable in that it was based on one isolated incident in 65 months of service with no previous adverse action. 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 misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by a finding at a NJP on 27 March 2001 for numerous violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ) : Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order ), 5 specifications ; Article 128 (A ssault ); Article 134 ( Indecent assault ), 4 specifications. Although a discharge based on one NJP may seem harsh, that NJP was for several acts of sexual harassment, indecent assaults, and simple ass ault on several females on diver se occasions from January 2001 to February 2001 . T he Applicant’s contention he was separated based on one isolated incident is without merit based on the aforementioned evidence of the numerous violations he committed over a 30 day period . The preliminary inquiry of 6 March 2001 also contains detailed statements regarding the misconduct engaged in by the Applicant.

I ndividuals are indoctrinated from the day of recruitment and have had the policy reinforced through annual Navy-wide training sessions throughout their enlistment on the U.S Navy’s policy on sexual harassment. Violations of this policy result in mandatory processing for administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge. The record reflects the Applicant met the requirements for separation due to misconduct- commission of a serious offense. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case to an administrative board, but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. Based on the seriousness of the misconduct , the detrimental impact it had on the command, and the lack of mitigating circumstances , the Board determined an upgrade is not warranted and would inappropriate based on the violations of the UCMJ .

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801415

    Original file (MD0801415.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The three member administrative board returned findings of misconduct by a vote of 2-1, by a vote of 3-0 that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 3-0 that the separation should be characterized as “Under Other Than Honorable ” . 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901806

    Original file (ND0901806.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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000085

    Original file (MD1000085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Naval Clemency and Parole Board reviewed the case and determined that no clemency was warranted. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record entries, the transcript of the Special Court-Martial proceeding, and the overall discharge process. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801090

    Original file (ND0801090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate based on the assault violations involving homosexual conduct as an isolated incident.Issue 3: (Equity) RELIEF 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801671

    Original file (ND0801671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902249

    Original file (ND0902249.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Other Documentation: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. The Board determined an upgrade would be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500404

    Original file (ND0500404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper and inequitable because: • It is an injustice for him “to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of his discharge.” • His “marks were very good.” • “…this was an isolated offense.” • He “faced racial discrimination.” • His “punishment was too severe compared to todays standards” and “worse than most people got for the same offense.” • That his “command abused its authority,” “did not...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500327

    Original file (MD1500327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, and for of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; wrongfully consume alcohol under age 21), Article 129 (Burglary; unlawfully broke and entered barracks room of Cpl), and Article 134 (General article; 1 specification of indecent assault). 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101743

    Original file (MD1101743.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: HONORABLE OR OR UNCHARACTERIZEDNarrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20050324 - 20050522Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20050523Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20060208Highest Rank:Length of Service: Years Months16 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:79MOS: 7041Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100066

    Original file (MD1100066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.