Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801665
Original file (ND0801665.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABHAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080805
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) 20000513 - 20001024                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20001025     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20010413
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 21 D a ys       Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 37
Highest Rank /Rate :       ABHAR     Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): R ifle , Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20010307 : Art icle 107 (False official statement)
Article 123 ( F orgery)
Awarded : Susp ended :

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 :

Other Documentation (Describe) :





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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities .
2. Narrative reason is wrong.
Decision

Date : 20 08 1106             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning s , regarding .

Issue 2: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. 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 states he was discharged because he attempted suicide. According to the Applicant’s official military record, the basis for his discharge was his violation of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Articles 107 (False official statement) and Article 123 (Forgery). Violations of Article 107 and Article 123 are considered serious offenses, punishable by a bad conduct or d ishonorable discharge and up to imprisonment 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. Accordin gly, the Applicant was properly processed for separation from the Naval Service due to his misconduct which is considered the commission of a serious offense.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. For the edification of the Applica nt , w hen a service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel , it is appropriate to characterize that service under “H onorable ” conditions. An “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ” discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Board acknowledges the Applicant’s misconduct represents a significant negative aspect in his military record and 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 31, dated 20 Feb 01, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-142, SEPARATION 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 107 and 123 .


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 | ND0801738

    Original file (ND0801738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20020614 - 20030609Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030610Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070724Length of Service: Years Months27 DaysEducation Level:Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 40Highest Rank/Rate:SNEvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle Pistol Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902625

    Original file (ND0902625.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020420 - 20021203Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021204Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050712Highest Rank/Rate:UTCNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)09 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 59EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.33Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900255

    Original file (ND0900255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801963

    Original file (ND0801963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20050809 - 20060707 (Medical DQ)Active:USNR (DEP) 20060328 - 20061107 (Enlisted in another service)USNR (DEP)20061108 - 20061121 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20061122Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20071217Highest Rank/Rate:SALength of Service: YearMonths26 DaysEducation Level:AFQT:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800609

    Original file (ND0800609.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative board then voted 2-1 that the misconduct warranted separation with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. In accordance with regulation, when separation processing is warranted for more than one reason the service member shall be processed for all valid causes. Violations of UCMJ Articles 107 and 123 constitute the “commission of a serious offense”, the discharge basis in this case.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700661

    Original file (ND0700661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by 3 retention warnings, 3 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 107 (false official statement) and 123 (intent to deceive) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801883

    Original file (ND0801883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge due to the fact his post service conduct shows he has changed and become a productive citizen in his community.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 Board determined the Applicant post service conduct did not warrant an upgrade to“Honorable” however; it was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901112

    Original file (ND0901112.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...