Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801714
Original file (ND0801714.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AMEAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080812
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 1910-104 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19901026 - 19910407                Active: 19910408 - 19950407 RELAD
                                                                        USNR 19950408 - 19980114 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19980721     Period of E nlistment : Years 17 Months Extension       Date of Discharge: 20000823
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth 03 D a ys       Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:      AFQT: 34
Highest Rank /Rate : AME3          Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.0 ( 4 )   Behavior: 2.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.01
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF : Retention Warnings:

NJP :
- 20000501 : Art icle 134 (Impersonating a Commissioned, Warrant Non Commissioned, o r Petty Officer, or an agent or
 official)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20000714 : Art icle 86 (U A) 0400, 20000626 - 0100, 20000627 (21 hours)
Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , 3 specifications
Awarded : Susp ended :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 ”

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. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Education/Employment o pportunities
3 Record of s ervice .

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 .
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 s concerning s and regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he served all the conditions of his current enlistment before being discharged. Based on the document titled “Agreement to Extend Enlistment NAVPERS 1070/621” dated 18 March 2000, the Applicant agreed to extend his enlistment in the Navy for an additional 17 months, which extended his EAOS to 20 December 2001. 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 non-judicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Art icle 86 (UA), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation), and Article 134 (Impersonating a Commissioned Officer, Warrant, Non Commissioned, or Petty Officer). These violations 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 court martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. 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 “H onorable ” conditions. 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. The Board acknowledges the misconduct of the Applicant represents a significant negative aspect in his military record and it outweighs those positive accomplis h ments he may have achieved.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the rec haracterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, 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, is considered during Board reviews . Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card company’s or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; continued higher education and character witness statements. The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from 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.



Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any additional statements or evidence in his behalf. To warrant an upgrade to “Honorable” the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined based on the l ack of documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Genera l (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violation involved.

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 28, effective 30 March 2000 until 29 August 2000,
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 s of the UCMJ, Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation), and Article 134 (Impersonating a Commissioned Officer, Warrant, Non Commissioned, or Petty Officer).

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 | ND0801501

    Original file (ND0801501.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19940307 - 19940911Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19940912Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:19991022Length of Service: Years Months11 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 71Highest Rank/Rate:OS3EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):GCM NDSMNJP:-...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801241

    Original file (MD0801241.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900381

    Original file (ND0900381.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900749

    Original file (MD0900749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined clemency was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902574

    Original file (MD0902574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post-service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800810

    Original file (MD0800810.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In response to the Applicant’s clemency request, the case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. While the Applicant’s request for an discharge was considered inappropriate due to the nature of his in-service conduct, the board did determine an upgrade from a “ Bad-Conduct Discharge ” to an “ Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ” discharge to be appropriate.After a thorough review of the available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301760

    Original file (ND1301760.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201019

    Original file (MD1201019.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined his characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was equitable.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 remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ”...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901429

    Original file (MD0901429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001839

    Original file (ND1001839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wishes to become eligible for the GI Bill. 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...