Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801335
Original file (ND0801335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AOAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080606
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to: COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20051209 - 20060627                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20060628      Period of Enlistment : Years Extension  Date of Discharge: 20070625
Length of Service: Years Months 28 D ays        Education Level: Age at Enlistment:    
Highest Rank/Rate: AOAN Evaluation Marks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR AFQT: 40
Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     NDSM GWOTSM
NJPs:
20070410: Article 121 (Larceny).
Article 134 (Threat, communicating).
Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warnings:
20070410: For Commanding Officer’s Non-judicial Punishment of 20070410 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 121,
Larceny and Article 134, Threat, Communicating.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 1910-142 ”
         “ JKQ ”
         “ MISCONDUCT DUE TO COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, 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:              
Additional Statements:
From Applicant:         From Representation:     From Congress member:

Related to Post-Service Period (cont):

         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 .

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 121, Larceny and Article 134, Threat, communicating.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. DD-214 is incorrect.
2. Denies having a personality disorder.

Decision

Date: 2008 1023   Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends her DD-214 is incorrect. The Applicant submitted a copy of two separate DD-214’s and a DD-2807, Report of Medical History (for enlistment in the National Guard), in support of her request for an upgrade. 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 service was marred by one retention warning and one nonjudicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 121(Larceny of a shipmates property) and Article 134 (Communicating a threat to a shipmate). These are considered serious offenses for which the Applicant could have received a 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.

Pursuant to the Administrative Separation Processing Notice of 9 May 2007 and the Commanding Officer, USS JOHN C. STENNIS letter of 16 May 2007, the Applicant was processed for administrative separation due to a personality disorder and misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (COSO). Based on the administrative message from COMCARSTRKGRU THREE, the Applicant was to be discharged with a narrative reason of misconduct due to COSO and a characterization of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. A review of the two DD-214’s submitted by the Applicant was conducted. The first DD-214 discharge date was 10 June 2007 and the narrative reason reflected misconduct due to COSO; block 22 of the DD-214 was not signed by the authorized official. The second DD-214 discharge date was 25 June 2007 and the narrative reason reflected personality disorder; block 22 was signed by the authorized official. Based on the foregoing evidence, a request for an administrative correction to reflect discharge due to COSO, as directed by the separation authority, has been requested as noted on page two of this decisional document.

Additionally, the Board determined an upgrade to “Honorable” was not warranted based on the seriousness of the offenses committed and lack of mitigating evidence. An “Honorable” characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. The Board acknowledged the misconduct represented a significant negative aspect in the Applicant’s service record and determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

Issue 2: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. In regard to the Applicant’s contention she does not have a personality disorder, the evidence of record indicates on or about 7 May 2007, the Ship’s Psychologist performed a mental health evaluation on the Applicant and confirmed a diagnosis of ‘Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified’. He concluded the condition was so severe that it made her incompatible for service, a danger to herself and others, and a distraction to the mission. Based on the foregoing, he recommended expeditious administrative separation. The NDRB determined the DD-2807 Report of Medical History, of 30 August 2007, submitted by the Applicant, did not contain sufficient documentation to support the Applicant’s contention that she does not have a personal disorder. However, there was sufficient documentation in the

Applicant’s record to substantiate the original diagnosis of a Personality Disorder. The Board determined a change 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, provided 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 granted 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.
Employment/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 | 2009_Marine | MD0901371

    Original file (MD0901371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that when there are two reasons for separation (medical conditions and misconduct), regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. ” 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 does not have...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500960

    Original file (ND0500960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.941202: Retention Warning from USS CALIFORNIA (CGN 36): Advised of deficiency (Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty) and 90 (Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801758

    Original file (ND0801758.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested his discharge characterization be upgraded to an “Honorable”. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the offenses committed; 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600551

    Original file (ND0600551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 7) and (Member 4)Letter from A_ L_, Applicant’s mother, undatedReport of Mental Status Exam by R_ D. K_, Ph D, dtd December 8, 2005 (4 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400734

    Original file (ND1400734.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks medical benefits.2. When notified of administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901547

    Original file (ND0901547.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 evidence submitted by the Applicant.The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s record of service included for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900360

    Original file (MD0900360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OR REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE.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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention his Narrative Reason for Separation should not indicate his discharge was ordered by a Court-Martial; therefore the Narrative Reason should be changed to “Completion of Required Active...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001914

    Original file (ND1001914.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: NONE 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001169

    Original file (ND1001169.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on feelings of regret. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201358

    Original file (MD1201358.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that the diagnosis of Personality Disorder, which does not warrant a medical retirement, was proper.The Applicant completed his first enlistment period with an Honorable characterization of his service for that period of service, however, each period of enlistment is an independent obligation, and characterization of service is determined for that specific period. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...