Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801588
Original file (ND0801588.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-RMSN, 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: USNR (DEP) 19901220 - 1991224                  Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19902225      Period of Enlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 19930916
Length of Service: Years Months 22 D ays Education Level: Age at Enlistment:
AFQT: 91 Highest Rank/Rate: RM3 Evaluation Marks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR      OTA: NFIR
 Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):     Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA/CONF:

NJP:
- 19930727 : Article 107 (False official statements), 21 Specifications
Awarded: Suspended:

SCM: SPCM: CC: 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 Representation:     From Congress member:

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 107.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Record of service.
2. Not given a chance to defend himself.

Decision

Date: 2008 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 based on h is record of service. 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 violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 107 (False official statement) with 21 specifications. Violation of Article 107 is considered a serious offense, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated band 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. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate due to the nature and number of specifications involved.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade to his discharge because he was not given a chance to defend himself. The record of evidence shows the Applicant waived his right to confer with counsel and waived his right to reject non-judicial punishment and demand trial by court-martial. If the Applicant was innocent of the charges against him or felt he had mitigating reasons for his misconduct, the Applicant should have sought out the advice of an attorney, provided to him at no cost by the military, and demanded trial by court-martial where the Government’s burden of proof is much higher and the Applicant would have been better able to defend himself. By waiving these rights and accepting NJP the Applicant agreed to the judgment of his commanding officer. Based on the lack of evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity stated under Issue 1, 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: 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, provided 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 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, 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.
Employment/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 | ND0801872

    Original file (ND0801872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate 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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001638

    Original file (ND1001638.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100188

    Original file (ND1100188.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .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 substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800444

    Original file (ND0800444.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - Susp - Retention Warnings:NFIR Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100080

    Original file (ND1100080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends medical issues contributed to his misconduct.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801912

    Original file (ND0801912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the repeated incidents of misconduct; 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900265

    Original file (ND0900265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB therefore relied upon the presumption of regularity in this case and determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900309

    Original file (ND0900309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293 and personal letter, no documentation was provided for review. Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801665

    Original file (ND0801665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. ” 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900187

    Original file (ND0900187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s separation was appropriate considering the length of service and the UCMJ violation 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, 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...