Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801538
Original file (ND0801538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, 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) 19980630 - 19980813                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19989814     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20010126
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 12 D a ys     Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 40
Highest Rank /Rate : E-2 Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.0 ( 3 )   Behavior: 1.67 ( 3 )       OTA: 2.72
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF : 20000421 – 20000428 (7 days)

NJP :
- 19990819 : Art icle 128 (A ssault)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20000114 : Article 86 (UA)
Article 107 (False o fficial s tatement)
Awarded : Susp ended :
20000406 Suspended restriction vacated.
- 20000406: Art icle 86 (UA , 7 days )
Article 87 (Missing movement)
Article 91 (Disobeying a Warrant Officer)
 Awarded: RESTR FOP

- 20000509: Article 86 (UA)
 Awarded: REST
S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

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 :


Related to Post-Service Period (cont) :

Other Documentation (Describe) :

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 87, 91, 107.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Desires to reenlist.
2. Treated unjustly .
3 . Post s ervice conduct .

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 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 .

Issue 2: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant claims he was professional, responsible and demonstrated good workmanship while on active duty. However, he was targeted by other s for personal gain. These individuals wanted to see him fail. 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 was marred by four non- judicial punishments for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Articles 86 (UA) , Article 87 (Missing movement) , Article 92 (Failure to obey) , and Article 107 (False official statement) . These are considered serious violations and t he Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge and confinement up to 5 years if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial . The Applicant has provided no documentary evidence or statements from witnesses to support his claims he was targeted and co-workers desired his failure . In the absence of such documentation, the Board determined that an upgrade w ould be inappropriate.

Issue 3: ( ) . The Applicant states he has matured since his discharge from the U . S . Navy and has gone to school, which demonstrates discipline and patience . 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.

Although t he Applicant states he has matured and changed, he 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. 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, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and wi thout having the necessary post service documentation to review, t he Board determined 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801347

    Original file (ND0801347.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701247

    Original file (ND0701247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 more than 15 years, has already been granted 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800115

    Original file (ND0800115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board did determine that the record factually supported each of these reasons for discharge, that discharge was appropriate for the Applicant’s misconduct, and that a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions was warranted by the misconduct clearly documented in the record. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801491

    Original file (MD0801491.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 86, 92, 107, 111, and 112A. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801037

    Original file (ND0801037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700638

    Original file (ND0700638.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. 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 Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901929

    Original file (ND0901929.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801261

    Original file (ND0801261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Supporting documentation that could have been submitted for consideration by the Board include, but is not limited to: evidence of a verifiable long-term employment record;evidence of a drug-free existence; documentation of educational pursuits; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of continuing volunteer or church service, and documentation of financial stability or evidence of good standing with financial institutions or credit card companies.The Applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700332

    Original file (ND0700332.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation other than her statement.. 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900836

    Original file (ND0900836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After receiving the court-martial charges, the Applicant submitted a request (dated March 27, 1996) for administrative discharge under general conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial and also requested a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post-service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” Additional...