Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801679
Original file (ND0801679.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080804
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20030523 - 20030923              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030924      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 20060818
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 29 D a ys        Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: NFIR
Highest Rank /Rate :       AN        Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GWOTEM GWOTSM SSDR NER (2) HSM

Periods of UA : 20040523-20040524 (1 DAY)
20060605-20060705 (30 DAYS)

NJP :
- 20040617 : Art icle 86 ( UA, a bsence without leave)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20041103 : Art icle 86 ( UA, a bsence without leave from general quarters)
Article 107 (False official statement about her location for general quarters)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20060330 : Art icle 86 (U A ) , 3 days
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM :
- 20060720 : Art icle 86 ( UA, a bsence without leave) , 30 days
 Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a PO, by being disrespectful in language)
 Article 121 (Larceny, unauthorized use of another member’s visa share - che c k card)
Sentence :

SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:
- 20040617 : For CO’s NJP held on 20040617 for VUMCJ, Article 86-Absence without leave.

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:       
        
Related to Post-Service Period (cont):

         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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 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 91 , Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer, and Article 107, False official statement, and Article 121, Larceny .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Seeking to return to active d u ty.
2. Never committed or repeated a serious offense.

Decision

Date: 20 08 1121   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : The Applicant is seeking an upgrade so that she can return to active duty and show her superiors she is able to serve the country with honor and respect. 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 characterization of her discharge should be upgrade because she never committed or repeat ed a serious offense. 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 retention warning, three NJP’s for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( U A); Article 107 ( False official statement ) and one SCM for violations of the Article 86 (UA, over 30 days); Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct ); and Article 121 ( Larceny ) .

On 20 July 2006, th e Applicant was notified of dual processing for separation by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct ; she waived all of her rights except for copies of the documents that were forwarded to the separation authority. The separation process was in strict compliance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual. I n accordance with regulation, when separation processing is warranted for more than one reason , dual or multiple processing is required. The Applicant’s misconduct, warranting separation for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and the commission of a serious offense, is clearly documented in the service record. The separation authority determined that misconduct due to commission of a serious offence most clearly described the reason for discharge. The NDRB determined the 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801771

    Original file (MD0801771.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service, including Good Conduct Medal.4. The NDRB determined Applicant’s characterization of service was properly considered by the Administrative Discharge Board and a change would be inappropriate. The Applicant is directed to contact the Veteran’s Administration at 1-888-422-4551and/or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service at 1-800-962-0648 for further information regarding this issue.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801360

    Original file (ND0801360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded characterization was appropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000719

    Original file (ND1000719.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge characterization is too harsh for the misconduct of record. When notified of the administrative separation process using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and to request an administrative board.The Applicant provided documentation that included:, , ,post-service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900172

    Original file (ND0900172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s contention isagain without merit 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900675

    Original file (ND0900675.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 | ND0801707

    Original file (ND0801707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in their characterization to “Honorable ” based on his record of service. 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 is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800896

    Original file (ND0800896.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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Board determined based on 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900952

    Original file (ND0900952.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization was appropriate. By a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, ” and the narrative reason for the discharge, “Misconduct,” shall remain unchanged.After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900915

    Original file (ND0900915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20060131 - 20060226Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20060227Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20071002Highest Rank/Rate:ABHAALength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)06 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 38EvaluationMarks:Performance:2.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 1.33Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NMCOSMPeriods...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801504

    Original file (ND0801504.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 (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...