Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801572
Original file (ND0801572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PRAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080722
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
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) 19900409 - 19900808                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19900809     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 19940217
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 07 D a ys      Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 69
Highest Rank /Rate : PR3 Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.6 ( 3 ) Behavior: 3.2 ( 4 ) OTA: 3.35
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA : 19910211-19910212 (1 Day)

NJP :
- 19930920 : Art icle 92 ( Disobeying a lawful order or regulation )
Article 128 ( Assault and battery )
Article 134 ( Drunk and disorderly conduct )
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings: 1
- 19900810 : For failure to disclose pre-service involvement with civil authorities.

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. Appointed military attorney did not provide accurate information and mislead the Applicant.
 2. Improper trial.

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 .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade to his discharge due to the lack of assistance provided by his appointed attorney. 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 NJP for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order) , Article 128 ( Assault ) , and Article 134 ( Drunk and disorderly conduct). Violations of Articles 92 and 128 are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement 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 discharge with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service, when the less favorable “Under Other Than Honorable” characterization could have been used. There is no evidence in the record nor did the Applicant provide any to support his claim the appointed attorney did not provide proper assistance. Additionally, t he NDRB is not authorized to investigate claims of misrepresentation by an attorney. The NBRD determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant appears to understand he was tried by a court for his misconduct. The record of evidence shows he accepted non-judicial punishment for his misconduct, then was subject to an Administrative Separation Board. The purpose of the Administrative Separation Board is to make three determinations to the commanding officer: 1) Did the Applicant commit the misconduct alleged; 2) S hould the Applicant be retained or separated; and 3) I f separated, determine the characterization of service for the discharge. The Board which heard the Applicant’s case determined he had committed the misconduct and should be separated. The only dissent among the board members was the characterization of service. Two board members determined a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge was appropriate. The third member recommended a less favorable characterization. The NDRB determined the awarded discharged was appropriate for the violations of the UCMJ involved and 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 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 s 92 and 128.

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 | ND0900545

    Original file (ND0900545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701156

    Original file (ND0701156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and the characterization of his service. 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100653

    Original file (ND1100653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .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.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301471

    Original file (MD1301471.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant appeared before an Administrative Separation Board, which determined he committed misconduct and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801906

    Original file (MD0801906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the numerous violations the Applicant committed and an upgrade based on back pain as a mitigating factor 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 Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900478

    Original file (MD0900478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record of evidence shows the Applicant had served for 218 days upon notification of discharge proceedings on 3 March 2008.Therefore, the NDRB could not consider the Applicant’s request to change his discharge characterization to “Uncharacterized” so the NDRB considered the Applicant’s petition as a request to upgrade his characterization of service to “Honorable”. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101292

    Original file (ND1101292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge was too harsh.The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. ” 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. Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800821

    Original file (MD0800821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : (Equity) 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. Based on this evidence, an upgrade or change in the characterization of service by the Board is unwarranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801856

    Original file (ND0801856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s repeated serious misconduct were properly considered in determining the characterization of his service and 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800832

    Original file (MD0800832.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT...