Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801556
Original file (ND0801556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ASAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080718
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19891204 - 19900711                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19900712      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19930810
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 07 D a ys       
Education Level: Age at Enlistment:    AFQT: 64
Highest Rank /Rate :       ASAN      Evaluation M arks: Performance:    2.2 ( 3 )   Behavior: 2.6 ( 3 )         OTA: 2.60
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NDSM SASM SSDR NER

NJP : SPCM: Retention Warnings:

S CM :
- 199305 1 1 : Art icle 86 (U A), from 19921006-19921231 (85 DAYS)
19930113-19930125 (12 DAYS)
19930210-19930411 (62 DAYS)
Sentence : CONF FOR 30 DAYS

C C :
- 19930119 : Offense: 1. Failure to appear in court .
2. Driving on a suspended drivers permit .

Sentence : 1. Fined $50.00 plus court cost and 30 days in jail (suspended) .
2. Fined $100.00 plus court cost, 30 days in jail (suspended), and 30 days suspension of
operator’s permit.

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 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 21 July 1994, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

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 86 , Unauthorized absences over 30 days .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Seeking to access educational benefits.
2. Isolated incident in 30 months of service with no other adverse action.

Decision

Date: 20 08 1030   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : AMVETS

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMM I S SION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : The Applicant is seeking an upgrade in the characterization of service in order to access educational benefits. 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 , for additional information regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because of the u ndefined reason for separation and it was based on one isolated incident in 30 months of service. He provides a personal statement, and character reference s letters from an American Veteran service officer and his case manager at Midnight Miss i ons . 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 NDRB advises the Applicant that despite a service member’s prior record of service certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record which is marred by the finding at a SCM proceeding on 21 September 1993 for violation s of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( U A), 3 specifications totaling 159 days , and a civilian conviction on 19 January 1993 for f ailure to appear in court and driving on a suspended license . The Applicant’s misconduct included two Article 86 violations , unauthorized absences for over 30 days each. These violations are considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge and confinement is authorized if adjudged and awarded as part of a sentence by a Special or General Courts Martial.

T hese violations substantiate the misconduct for which t he Applicant was separated and provide his separation basis under MILPERSMAN 1910-142 for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Therefore, the Applicant’s contention the reason for separation is undefined is contradicted by the evidence of record which demonstrated the Applicant was properly discharged for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Additionally, the evidence of record indicates the discharge was not based on one isolated incident as alleged by the Applicant . The record reflects the discharge was based on three different unauthorized absences that were adjudicated at one summary court martial . The evidence provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the Applicant’s misconduct.

The Applicant’s conduct and proficiency markings, which form the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflect his misconduct, and fall below that required for an upgrade to “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” and the additional evidence submitted by the Applicant was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct . The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization 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



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 | ND0801092

    Original file (ND0801092.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801433

    Original file (ND0801433.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board acknowledges the misconduct of the Applicant and determined the awarded characterization 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 ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • 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 | ND0800891

    Original file (ND0800891.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801579

    Original file (ND0801579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s command determined this was the appropriate characterization of service based on his service record. Due to the serious nature of the Applicant’s misconduct and poor judgment in communicating the true state of the situation, the NDRB 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801677

    Original file (ND0801677.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An “Under Other Than Honorable ” conditions discharge is appropriate when the basis for separation is commission or omission of an act that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected from a service member. His post-service actions demonstrate his unsatisfactory performance and characterization of service was most likely not reflective of his overall character and therefore the Board determined an upgrade to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” was warranted.After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801583

    Original file (MD0801583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Service benefits.2. 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.Beside the Applicants statement attached to the DD Form 293, he provided only service related documents as additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900464

    Original file (ND0900464.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900805

    Original file (MD0900805.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801763

    Original file (MD0801763.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant stated his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in almost three years of service. In the absence of collaborating evidence, the Board determined the narrative reason was appropriate and a change 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant...