Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801492
Original file (ND0801492.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-DKSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080708
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)      19931210 - 19940502              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19940503      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 20000921
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 19 D a ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 57
Highest Rank /Rate :       DK3       Evaluation M arks: Performance:    4 ( 2 )     Behavior: 3.5 ( 2 )         OTA: 4.14
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      , , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 19991104 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey ) 4 specifications
Article 107 (False official statement)
Article 134 (Failed to properly handle moneybag ), 2 specifications
Awarded : , , , Susp ended :

- 20000615: Art icle 86 (UA)
Article 92 (Dereliction in performance of duties)
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:
20000626 :         For Counseling regarding inability to complete Dependent Care Certificate, ensuring world-wide availability.

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) :




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Unfair treatment.
Decision

Date: 20 08 1024             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

 : (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant implies s he was treated unfairly and not allowed to achieve her potential as a Sailor. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support h er issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention the command treated her unfairly and did not provide her with proper counseling and guidance to meet the standards of serving as a Sailor.

The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning and two NJP ’s for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) , Article 9 2 (Failure to obey an order) , Article 107 (Making a false official statement) , and Article 134 (Failed to properly handle moneybag) . These v iolations a re considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge and confinement is authorized 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 separation.

For the edification of the Applicant, w hen the quality of a Sailor’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 H onorable C onditions ) ” discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record . The Board acknowledges the violations of the Applicant were significant negative aspects of her conduct and the awarded characterization of “General (Under Hono r able Conditions)” was appropriate; 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
21 August 2002, 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 92 and 107.

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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801663

    Original file (ND0801663.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000584

    Original file (ND1000584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported both reasons for discharge and that separation from the Naval Service was warranted; as such, he directed that the Applicant be separated and that the basis for separation on the DD Form214 be Pattern of Misconduct. The Separation Authority further determined that the Applicant should be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that he receive an RE-4...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801374

    Original file (ND0801374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in her characterization to “Honorable”. However, due to the misconduct the Applicant’s record of service did not warrant the requested “Honorable” characterization.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900551

    Original file (ND0900551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000654

    Original file (ND1000654.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. After careful review and consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s case, however, the Board found that relief was warranted on the basis of equity.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801885

    Original file (ND0801885.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant he had a condition caused by his service in the Navy orthat he was recommended, or processed, for a medical board by proper authority. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-120, a service member separated due to a physical or mental condition should receive an “Honorable ” characterization unless an entry level separation (“Uncharacterized”) or “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” is warranted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801501

    Original file (ND0801501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19940307 - 19940911Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19940912Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19991022Length of Service: Years Months11 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 71Highest Rank/Rate:OS3EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):GCM NDSMNJP:-...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801185

    Original file (ND0801185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence in the record or presented by the Applicant to support his contention that the leading yeoman was responsible for the “Other Than Honorable Discharge” characterization of his discharge.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801506

    Original file (ND0801506.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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801842

    Original file (ND0801842.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.The Applicant has requested a discharge characterization upgrade to “Honorable”. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a...