Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801438
Original file (ND0801438.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ET2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080625
Characterization of Service Received:
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) 19980331 - 19980610                Active: 19980611 - 20020928 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020930     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20060404
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 04 D a ys       Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 97
Highest Rank /Rate : ET1    Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.8 ( 6 )   Behavior: 3.0 ( 7 )        OTA: 3.29
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): G CM NEM NER SSDR (2) GWOTSM GWOTEM NDSM

NJP :
- 20030807 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey lawful order or regulation)
Article 86 ( UA )
 Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20050218 : Art icle 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)
Article 107 ( False official statement )
 Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:
- 20030819 : For violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to ob ey lawful order or regulation)

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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT

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 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge inequitable because his pattern of misconduct stemmed from family problems and one of his NJP’s was an isolated incident.
2. Request his RE code be changed to RE – 1 .

Decision

Date: 20 08 1030             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequi table because it was based on a NJP that stemmed from family issues and a second NJP which was an isolated incident. He submitted a personal statement, in-service character references and letter of recommendation from the Director of Human Resources of Connecticut for the Board’s consideration. 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 retention warning for failure to obey a lawful order and two NJP proceedings for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Articles 86 (UA), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation), and Article 107 (False official statement). The NJP’s took place on 07 August 2003 and 18 February 2005 . There is no evidence in the record or provided by the Applicant regarding his family problems that would mitigate the misconduct for which he was found guilty at his first NJP. In regard to the Applicant ’s allegation the second NJP was for an isolated incident , t he record reflects the Applicant was separated due to a pattern of misconduct , as evidenced by 2 NJP’s held in August 2003 and February 2005, and a violation of a retention warning issued in August 2003 ; all during his enlistment. Therefore, the Board determined the allegation the second NJP was an isolated incident is without merit.

Based on a review of the record, the Board determined the requirement for separation due to a pattern of misconduct has been met and the narrative reason should not be changed . Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Applicant was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct for which he was discharged.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. W hen the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel , it is appropriate to characterize that service under “H onorable ” conditions. A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Board acknowledges the misconduct of the Applicant over a 2 year period represents significant negative aspects of his military service which outweigh the positive aspects of his record. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: The Applicant has also request ed his RE Code be changed to RE- 1. 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 Reenlistment/Re-Codes, for additional information regarding .

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 or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, 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 | 2010_Marine | MD1000427

    Original file (MD1000427.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This was a requirement directed by Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5510.30 (Department of the Navy (DON), Personnel Security Program (PSP) Instruction).Based on the severity of the offenses committed by the Applicant, and the pattern of misconduct established by the Applicant while in service, command administratively processed for separation pursuant to paragraph 6210.3 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN): Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). As such, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801036

    Original file (ND0801036.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board did determine the Applicant’s discharge process contained administrative errors which resulted in the erroneous use of “Pattern of Misconduct” as the narrative reason for discharge. By a unanimous vote the Board determined the characterization of service should remain “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” and the narrative reason for discharge should change to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801554

    Original file (MD0801554.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 92 (Failure to obey orders or regulations), and Article 134 (Adultery). With a vote of 5-0,the Board found the discharge was proper but not equitable in that the violations were limited enough to rate a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” rather than the awarded “Under Other Than Honorable...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300936

    Original file (MD1300936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. 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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101123

    Original file (ND1101123.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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800346

    Original file (ND0800346.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0902408

    Original file (ND0902408.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900055

    Original file (ND0900055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN1910-700 (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT) [listed in DD214] Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20011031 - 20011216Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20011217Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20030905Highest Rank/Rate:AMAALength of Service: YearMonths19 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 74EvaluationMarks:NFIR Awards and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901346

    Original file (ND0901346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.he Board determined the Applicant’s request for an upgrade based on post-service conduct without documentation to support the same, was not sufficient to form a basis of relief. On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800819

    Original file (MD0800819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - ,,Susp - 20050317: Art(s) 121 (Larceny).Awarded - ,,,Susp - 6105 Counseling: 20020826: For Unauthorized absence.20021211: For Unauthorized absence 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:...