Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801698
Original file (ND0801698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PCSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080812
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)      20010118 - 20010212              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010213      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 20051005
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 23 D a ys Education Level: Age at Enlistment:         AFQT: 61
Highest Rank /Rate : PC3   Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.3 ( 4 )   Behavior: 2.3 ( 4 )         OTA: 2.85
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF : SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warnings:

NJP :
- 20041022 : Art icle 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer)
Article 121 (Wrongful appropriation)
 Awarded : Susp ended : (Vacated 20050216)

- 20050620 : Art icle 86 (U A)
Awarded : Susp ended :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”

The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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. Employment opportunities.
2. Discharge occurred within 90 days of and of contract.

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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
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 , regarding .
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he was discharged from the Navy w ithin three months f rom the end of his contract. Specifically, he contends he would have been entitled to an “ Honorable ” discharge at the end of his obligated 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 two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A) , Article 91 (Willfully disobeying a petty officer), and Article 121 (Wrongful appropriation). Violation of Article 121 is considered a serious offense, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention he would have been discharge with an “Honorable” discharge as h is record of service shows he received his second NJP on 20 June 2005 , eight months after his first NJP: Multiple NJP’s by a service member are not indicative of “Honorable” service. Although he was discharged on 5 October 2005 t his delay is not unusually long for processing an administrative discharge from the Navy with an “Under Other Than Honorable” condition s characterization of ser vice.

For the edification of the Applicant, w hen the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under “Honorable” conditions. 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. The Board acknowledges the Applicant’s misconduct as a significant departure from conduct expected of a U. S. Sailor 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found

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 .



Pertinent Regulation/Law (cont)

 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 and 121.


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 | ND0801564

    Original file (ND0801564.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900360

    Original file (MD0900360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OR REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE.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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention his Narrative Reason for Separation should not indicate his discharge was ordered by a Court-Martial; therefore the Narrative Reason should be changed to “Completion of Required Active...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800804

    Original file (MD0800804.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, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701023

    Original file (MD0701023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on four occasions for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article 91 (Willfully disobey a lawful order), Article 121 (Larceny) and Article 112a (Wrongful use of controlled substance). Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge 19961127: NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701233

    Original file (MD0701233.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)20020307 - 20021014Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20021015Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20050414Length of Service: Yrs Mths29 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001030

    Original file (ND1001030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801959

    Original file (MD0801959.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the Applicant’s contention is without merit and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate. The awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon mental and physical abuse 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...