Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801339
Original file (ND0801339.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EMFN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080609
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: SEPARATION
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630650

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19890504 - 19890529                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19890530      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 19930712
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 26 D a ys       Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 40
Highest Rank /Rate :       EM3       Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.8 ( 3 )   Behavior: 3.9 ( 3 )         OTA: 3.80
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM AFEM SASM MUC R SSDR

Periods of UA : 19930222-19930302 (8 DAYS)
19930314-19930419 (36 DAYS)

NJP : 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), Change 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 21 July 1994, Article 3630650, PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING ENLISTED PERSONNEL FOR SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

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 86, Unauthorized absences over 30 days .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Isolated incident in 48 months of service with no adverse action.

Decision

Date: 20 08 1023             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because it was based on one isolated incident that was due to marital problems. 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 . A “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” 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. A discharge “U nder O ther T han H onorable C onditions ” is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the naval service. The record reflects the Applicant underwent to periods of unauthorized absences totaling 44 day and was subsequently separated in lieu of trial by court martial. There were no non - judicial punishments or retention warnings in the record. After a thorough review of the records, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Board considered the performance evaluations (overall trait average of 3.80) , diagnosis of adjustment disorder , short duration of the unauthorized absences and absence of other misconduct in the record as mitigating factors . Based on the foregoing, the Board voted unanimously to upgrade the ch aracterization of discharge to “Gen eral (Under Honorable Conditions)”; the narrative reason shall not change.

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 | ND0801313

    Original file (ND0801313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT).Discussion :The Applicant admits the punishment he received was just, but contends the RE-Code was “ a little harsh ” . 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 Dissenting opinion: The Applicant was administratively discharged based on misconduct due to a pattern of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900092

    Original file (ND0900092.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900202

    Original file (ND0900202.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801746

    Original file (ND0801746.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s counsel requested an upgrade in the characterization of the Applicant’s service to Honorable and the narrative reason changed to convenience of the government based on the contention that the Applicant’s misconduct as discussed supra, is mitigated by his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and post-service conduct. After a thorough review of the his official service records, his post-service documentation regarding his PTSD, post-service accomplishments and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801655

    Original file (MD0801655.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20050924 - 20051023Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20051024Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20071220Length of Service: Years Month14 DaysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 40MOS: 0341Highest Rank: Fitness Reports: Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): Rifle...

  • 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 | 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801926

    Original file (ND0801926.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.For discharges based on conditions not a disability, the discharge should be honorable unless there exists justification for a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” , or entry level separation characterization. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members...

  • 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 | 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...