Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801467
Original file (ND0801467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

 Application Received: 20 080702
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) 20000728 - 20001016                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20001017     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20030602
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 14 D a ys     Education Level: 12 Age at Enlistment:         AFQT: 40
Highest Rank /Rate :       E2/MSSA Evaluation M arks: Performance: 2.5 ( 2 )    Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.17
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA : 20030409-20030410 (1 day)
NJP: 7
 - 20010904: Article 86 (UA from muster), 3 specifications
 Awarded: RIR BW Suspended: None
- 20011206: Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order – not to drink alcohol)
Awarded: FOP Suspended: NONE
 - 20020626 : Art icle 91 (Disrespectful language)
A rticle 92 ( F ailure to obey – refused to surrender ID card)
Awarded : Susp ended :
- 20020918 : Article 91 (Disrespectful language)
 Article 92 ( F ailure to obey lawful order to go below deck and put on a cover)
 Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Susp ended : NONE
 - 20010904: Article 86 ( UA from muster), 3 specifications
Awarded: RIR BW Susp ended : None
 - 20021030: Article 134 (Drunk and Disorderly)
Awarded: Susp ended :
- 20030409 : A rticle 91 (Disrespectful language)
 Article 92 ( F ailure to obey an order –drank alcohol)
Article 134 (Drunk and Disorderly)
 A warded: Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :
Retention Warnings:
- 20010622 : For drunk and disorderly conduct .

                           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 January 2004, 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 .

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, 92 and 134.




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

                                                      Applicant’s Issues
1. Desires to reenlist.
2. Feels his record of service rates an “ H onorable ” discharge.
3 . Feels the military should train service members about the dangers of alcohol abuse.

                                                      Decision
Date: 20081023 Documentary Review Location: Washington D.C. Representation: NONE


By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT) .
                                                      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 Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning s , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant feels he rates an “ H onorable ” discharge since he served proudly during the Gulf War . 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, and six NJP’s for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Articles 86 (UA , f ailure to report for musters ) ; Article 91 (Disrespect language) ; Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulations) ; and Article 134 (Drunk and disorderly). These are considered serious offenses which could warrant a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court- martial . Additionally, it was noted the Applicant was an alcohol rehabilitation failure. The Applicant acknowledges he had a serious alcohol problem, but he provides no evidence which proves he was not responsible for his behavior. Based on his willful and repeated misconduct, his quality of service clearly did not warrant an “ H onorable” discharge. An “ Honorable” discharge is appropriate when the quality of the service member’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. 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 outweigh positive aspects of the service. While the Board understands the Applicant’s proud feelings of service in time of war, it also acknowledged the Applicant’s misconduct as being a significant negative aspect in hi s record of service and determined his request for an upgrade was without merit and would be inappropriate to honor.

: ( ) . The Applicant claims the Navy had the responsibility to educate young sailors on the dangers of alcohol abuse. Training concerning a lcohol use/abuse and zero tolerance regarding illegal drug use is provided to a ll incoming Naval personnel. Additionally, refresher training concerning substance abuse is held regularly throughout a Sailor’s enlistment. Due to t he Applicant ’s ongoing alcohol problem, he was sent to a formal Alcohol Rehabilitation Program, which is an intensive alcohol abuse and behavior modification training course. Despite the benefit of this program and the Navy’s attempts to educate him, the Applicant continued to drink and while intoxicated, continued to violate the UCMJ which lead to his NJP’s . The Board determined his request for an upgrade was without merit.
 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 | ND0900025

    Original file (ND0900025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” to better his life. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the numerous and varied UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801241

    Original file (MD0801241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801259

    Original file (ND0801259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded to “Honorable ” based on his overall service which was faithful and honorable.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801960

    Original file (MD0801960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he deserves better than a “Bad Conduct” discharge after serving many years in the Marine Corps and taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902484

    Original file (MD0902484.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The General Court Martial Convening Authority affirmed all three reasons for separation, directed a characterization of service of Under Other than Honorable Conditions due to significant negative aspects of conduct, and further directed that the primary basis for separation reporting was Misconduct, Due to a Pattern of Misconduct. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct, or that he should not be held accountable for his actions.By a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801139

    Original file (ND0801139.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and service record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT - . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801518

    Original file (MD0801518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As stated in the above paragraph, when the quality of a service member has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions. The Applicant received a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901152

    Original file (MD0901152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.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.With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800947

    Original file (MD0800947.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Record of service.3. 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801287

    Original file (ND0801287.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his characterization of service should be upgraded because his discharge was unjust and lacking evidence. However, there is no evidence in the records available for review, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence or medical documentation to support the contention he was misdiagnosed by military medical personnel. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...