Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801449
Original file (ND0801449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-RM3, 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)      19950919 - 19951024              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19951025     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 19990318
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 24 D a ys       Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 89
Highest Rank /Rate :        E-4 Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.80 ( 5 ) Behavior: 2.20 ( 5 ) OTA: 2.96
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol JMUC

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
         - 19980123 : Art icle NFIR
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM :
- 19980203 : Art icle 91 (Disrespect towards a Petty Officer)
Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties)
 Article 128 (Assault)
 Sentence : REST
Suspended: RIR

SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:

- 19960508 : For failure to maintain an account for the direct deposit of his Navy net pay.

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. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 15 September 1999, Article 1910-152, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION.

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 91 and 92 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Needs financial assistance to improve his educational opportunities.
2. Post s ervice conduct .

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 ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FAILURE .
Discussion

 : The Applicant is asking his discharge be upgraded so he can better his career, continue his schooling and work on a military installation . 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 .

: ( ) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The A pplicant has been discharged for over nine years. He states he is working at a rehabilitation hospital help ing other veterans and the general public. 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 a retention warning, 1 NJP, and a SCM for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Disrespect towards a Petty Officer), Article 92 (Dereliction of duty), and Article 128 (Assault). These are considered serious violations which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of sentence by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted for an administrative discharge instead.

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 u nder review, is considered . The key word here is “Outstanding”. The Board is looking for actions that go beyond simply daily living . 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.

T he Applicant did not provide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request for an upgrade. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing and documented . 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 the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and w ithout having the necessary post service documentation to review 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 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901288

    Original file (ND0901288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-ETSR, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090409 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: (SERIOUS OFFENSE) Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20050126 - 20050608 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20050609 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000677

    Original file (ND1000677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400472

    Original file (ND1400472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to reenlist.2. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900576

    Original file (ND0900576.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200444

    Original file (ND1200444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can reenlist in the military.2. : (Non-decisional) The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can reenlist in the military.The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500280

    Original file (ND1500280.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001030

    Original file (ND1001030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100826

    Original file (ND1100826.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800683

    Original file (ND0800683.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Applicant is advised 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 warrants clemency. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300851

    Original file (ND1300851.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...