Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801270
Original file (ND0801270.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080519
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENT AND INDUCTION DUE TO FRAUDULENT ENTRY
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630100

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19970121 - 19970203                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19970204     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 19971126
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 23 D a ys      Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 67
Highest Rank /Rate :       FR        Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :
19970627 : Art icle 92 (Having a male member in a female BEQ)
Awarded : . Susp ended :

19971024 : Art icle 112a (Use of cocaine)
Awarded : Susp ended :

C C :
19970714 : Offense: Possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
Sentence : Fined $1,547.60, jail for 60 days, probation for 3 years, community service for 50 hours.

Retention Warnings:
19970203 : For fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose requir ed basic enlistment eligibility
 information.

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

         “ FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, DRUG ABUSE ”

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/ 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:              

Related to Post-Service Period (cont):   

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 11 December 1997,
Article 3630100, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF DEFECTIVE ENLISTMENTS AND INDUCTIONS - FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO THE NAVAL SERVICE.

 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 92 and 112a .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Employment opportunities.
2. Post-service conduct.

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 FRAUDULENT ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE, DRUG ABUSE .
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 , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of her post-service conduct. 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 record of service was marred by two NJPs for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Articles 92 (Failure to obey) and Article 112a (Drug use), and a conviction in civilian court for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Violations of Articles 92 and 112a are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge. The Board noted that the basis for the Applicant’s discharge, “Fraudulent Enlistment” with an “Under Other Than Honorable” characterization, was directed by the Commander, NTC Great Lakes, based upon the Applicant’s civilian conviction and NJP for violation of Article 92. Subsequent to the discharge order dated 10 October 1997, the Applicant was found guilty at NJP on 24 October 1997 of using cocaine.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides a discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews . 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; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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 submitted evidence of education, employment, and several reference letters to support her contention of good post-service conduct. Whi le this evidence does indicate creditable conduct by the Applicant following her discharge, the Board determined it does not meet the high standard required to upgrade her discharge considering the serious nature of her misconduct, both pre-service and while on active duty. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800517

    Original file (ND0800517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101450

    Original file (ND1101450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200045

    Original file (ND1200045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he did not fraudulently enlist, because when he enlisted he did not know that the child was his.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000307

    Original file (ND1000307.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201548

    Original file (ND1201548.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901256

    Original file (ND0901256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service (no specific issue). Based on the circumstances and additional documentation from the Applicant, the Board determined the narrative reason given at the time of discharge was proper, and a change is 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900820

    Original file (ND0900820.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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post-service efforts, the Board determined theevidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900120

    Original file (ND0900120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901934

    Original file (ND0901934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of clemency. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900454

    Original file (ND0900454.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization 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...