Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801534
Original file (ND0801534.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MNSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080715
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) 20030920 - 20040517                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040518     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20071113
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 26 D a ys      Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 62
Highest Rank /Rate :       E-3       Evaluation M arks: Performance:   NFIR      Behavior : NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20050930 : Art icle 86 (UA)
Article 90 (Disobey an officer)
 Article 92 (Failure to obey an order)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20061019 : Art icle 86 (UA)
Article 90 (Disobey an officer)
 A rticle 92 (Failure to obey an order)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20060129: Article 9 1(Insubordination to a Chief Petty Officer )
Article 92 (Failure to obey an order)
 Awarded: CC for 30 days, RIR

 - 20070909: Article 91 (Insubordination to a Chief Petty Officer)
Awarded: RIR

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:

- 20050930 : For CO’s NJP on 30 Sep 05 for willfully disobeying a superior officer and failure to obey a
l awful order.








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 .

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 86, 90, 91, and 92.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Desires to reenlist.
2. Youth and immaturity.
3 . Command falsified charges.

Decision

Date : 20 08 1 030             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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 states he was arrogant and immature and as a result thought he could mak e his own rules while on active duty. 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 four NJP’s for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Articles 86 (UA), Article 90 ( W illfully disobeying a superior officer), Article 91 ( I nsubordination to a Chief Petty Officer) , and Article 92 ( F ailure to obey a lawful order). Violation s of these Articles are considered serious offense s punishable by a punitive discharge and up to five years imprisonment if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

While he may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying cause s of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful and repeated misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further military service. 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 due to youth or immaturity . At the time of the Applicant’s final non - judicial punishment, h e was 22 years old and responsible for three dependents. He was given repeated opportunities by his command to change his pattern of conduct . Although he was sent to Anger Management Classes, his behavior would improve for only a short time and then he would fall back to the old pattern of disrespect and disobedience. Repeated violations of the UCMJ by a Sailor of his age and experience cannot be tolerated as it is prejudicial to good order and discipline. The Applicant received a “ General ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” discharge which was more than fair considering his record. The Board determined that an upgrade was not warranted.

: ( ) . The Applicant claims he tried to correct his behavior, but he could not clear his reputation with a new Chief Petty Officer who falsified charges in order to get him discharged. The Applicant has not submitted any evidence to support his allegation he was unjustly accused by this new Chief Petty Officer. In the absence of more concrete evidence th a n the Applicant’s statement , the Board determined the discharge did not warrant an upgrade.

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 | ND0900888

    Original file (ND0900888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Based on an isolated incident in 37 months of service. discharge. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700751

    Original file (MD0700751.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20020725 - 20020902Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020903Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20051222Length of Service: 03 Yrs 03Mths20 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201266

    Original file (MD1201266.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant also acknowledged his complete understanding of the Marine Corps Policy Concerning Illegal Use of Drugs on 5 June 2002.Despite an Article 112a violation, which requires mandatory administrative processing, the Applicant’s command allowed him to finish his enlistment, and he was discharged at his End of Active Obligated Service with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.In accordance with Paragraph 1004 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900781

    Original file (ND0900781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to Honorable to obtain employment with the government/military. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900950

    Original file (ND0900950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions,” and the narrative reason for the discharge; “Misconduct,” shall remain as issued considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved.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, theBoard found ADDENDUM: Information for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201030

    Original file (ND1201030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant professes her regrets for her misconduct while in the service and seeks a change in her RE-code to reenlist.2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400203

    Original file (MD1400203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600480

    Original file (ND0600480.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests upgrade of his discharge to honorable. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801161

    Original file (MD0801161.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, Articles 86, 90, 92, and 128. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301090

    Original file (ND1301090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not warrant relief. 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 .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal...