Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801315
Original file (ND0801315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080602
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)      20030613 - 20030728              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20030729      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 20041227
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 08 D a ys        Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 70
Highest Rank /Rate :       AA        Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM

NJP :
- 20041122 : Art icle 86 (U A, absen t from 20040902-20040923).
Article 121 (Larceny) , 2 specifications :
         - Spec ification 1: (Larceny of checks).
         - Spec ification 2: (Larceny of currency - $106.07 ).
 Article 123 (Forgery) , 3 specifications
 Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: 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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 s 121 and Article 123.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. In-service performance.
2. Personal prob lems.
3 . Post service conduct.
Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0409             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends her “O ther T han H onorable D ischarge ” was not justifiable and should be upgraded based on in-service performance as evidenced by her very high evaluation marks. The NDRB noted her performance evaluations were not found in the record. The Applicant also assumed she had a “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” discharge until she did some research which indicated she did not. 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 one NJP on 22 November 2004 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( U A, 21 days) ; Article 121 ( Larceny ), 2 specifications ; and Article 123 ( Forgery ), 3 specifications. Based upon available records, there is no indication the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion the Applicant committed a serious offense and that separation from military service was appropriate with the awarded discharge characterization of “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”. The NDRB determined an upgrade would not be appropriate based only on the remarks of the Applicant indicating she had very high evaluation marks.

In regard to the Applicant’s assumption she had a “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” discharge , p er the Administrative Separation Processing Notice of 22 November 2004 , the Applicant was notified of administrative separation due to a p ersonality d isorder and m isconduct due to the Commission of a Serious Offense (COSO ) with the least favorable characterization of discharge possible being an “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions ” . The Applicant waived all of her rights pertaining to administrative separations with the exception of copies of the documents being forwarded to the separation authority and was subsequently discharged based on misconduct (C OSO ) . Furthermore, t he DD Form 214 signed by the Applicant ( former last name Lafitte), denotes “O ther T han H onorable ” in Block #24, as the character of service. Based on the evidence of record the Applicant had sufficient notice and should have known her discharge was characterized as “ Under O ther T han H onorable ” . The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) The Applicant also contends while stationed in Virginia she had the most trying time of her life because of personal problems b r ought about by her abusive alcoholic husband and a psyc ho roommate . However, the Applicant provides no documented information she informed her chain of command of family problems and did not receive the assistance, leave, or help she asked for. Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, if she attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members. These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, or even Navy medical health personnel if needed, all provide services to members of the military, regardless of grade, in times of need. The NDRB determined these issues were without merit and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable 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; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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.

In regard to post service conduct, the Applicant contends she will be graduating from Southern Arkansas University on 9 May 2009 with a Bachelor of Science and has been accepted at West Texas A&M Master’s Degree Program . She has submitted transcripts from Southern Arkansas University for the Board’s consideration. The Board applauds the Applicant for her academic accomplishments. However, to warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. 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. Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. There are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.

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 | ND0801333

    Original file (ND0801333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).Discussion :The Applicant contends she was placed on certain medications while on active duty and with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” she would be able to get these medications from the VA. 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. In...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800985

    Original file (ND0800985.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from 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 Board determined based on the limited documentation provided a change would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800542

    Original file (MD0800542.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the Board determined relief was not warranted.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 that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6419, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.B. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900412

    Original file (ND0900412.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 issues presented 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 | ND0900102

    Original file (ND0900102.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :The Applicant is requesting his Re Code changed in order to reenlist in the military. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801220

    Original file (ND0801220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801611

    Original file (ND0801611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20021218 - 20030701Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030702Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050727Length of Service: Years Months26 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 48Highest Rank/Rate:ANEvaluationMarks:Performance:2.0(1) Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 1.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):SSDR NDSM GWOTEMPeriod...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800254

    Original file (MD0800254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Concerning his second claim, since he already received NJP for uttering worthless checks and also received a retention warning counseling, the Applicant should have been more watchful of his account balance before he wrote additional bad checks. 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: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001897

    Original file (ND1001897.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks discharge upgrade to obtain veteran educational benefits.2. Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900188

    Original file (ND0900188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority directed separation with an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge due to a pattern of misconduct. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, 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...