Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801716
Original file (ND0801716.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

JACOBSON, Jennifer A., 496-90-1727, ex-HM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080812
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)      20000822 - 20010220              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010221      Period of E nlistment : Years 33 MONTHS Extension        Date of Discharge: 20070215
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 23 D a ys        Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 71
Highest Rank /Rate :       HM 3       Evaluation M arks: Performance:    4.0 ( 3 )   Behavior: 4.0 ( 3 )         OTA: 3.75
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol NDSM OSR (2) GWOTSM


NJP :
- 20031210 : Article 128 (Assault)
 Art icle 134 ( C ommunicating a threat )
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20061208 : NJP Pending on Art icle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), b ut was refused by HM3 JACOBSON,
 who asked for a Court-Martial. The Command decided to administratively se parate HM3 JACOBSON
instead.
 Awarded : NFIR Susp ended :

Retention Warnings:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 20010221 ”
         “ 05 11 25 ”
        
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 :

Related to Post-Service Period (cont):

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 s of the UCMJ, Article 128 (Assault) and Art icle 134 (Communicating a threat).




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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Discharge unjust and unfair

Decision

Date : 20 08 1120            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 her discharge was unjust and unfair based on the circumstances surrounding the events leading to her discharge. 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 re cord of service was marred by one N JP for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 128 (Assault) and Article 134 (Communicating a threat) . These violation s are considered serious offense s , punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. In addition, the Applicant was to be taken to her second NJP for violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation), but refuse d NJP and requested a Court-martial. The charges centered on an improper fraternization in a school environment between student and instructor. Due to the school environment the Applicant was currently attending when the infractions allegedly occurred , i t was determined it would be quite costly to hold a court - martial in San Diego or Texas on the need for transport ing personnel to one place or the other , and the potential time delays to conduct the courts - martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead fo r an administrative discharge.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in their characterization to “Honorable”. 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. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s second pending NJP, t he Board acknowledged the Applicant’s first NJP based on violations of Article 128 (Assault) and Article 134 ( Communicating a threat) of December 2003 was significant enough to support a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge characterization and determined th e awarded characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.

 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 compan ies or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; continued higher education and character witness statements. 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 personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant also provided documentation showing she is a registered Dental Assistant and provided her naval evaluation reports. However, 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 limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of

service received, “Genera l (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate discharge characterization considering the UCMJ violations 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


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 | ND0801010

    Original file (ND0801010.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 Applicant provided a personal statement and documentation of his honorable discharge from the New York Army National Guard as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined an upgrade or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801750

    Original file (ND0801750.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900955

    Original file (ND0900955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a majority vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, ” and the narrative reason for the discharge; “Commission of a Serious Offense,” shall remain as issued considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700836

    Original file (ND0700836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1.Reenlist in California Army National Guard2.Inequitable because based on one incident in 32 months of service. 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800848

    Original file (ND0800848.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 an upgrade was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701080

    Original file (ND0701080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900557

    Original file (ND0900557.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined this issue was insufficient to justify the Applicant’s misconduct and clemency was not warranted. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency will be granted, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct justifies clemency. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Bad Conduct Discharge”, was an appropriate characterization considering the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100619

    Original file (ND1100619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends the Navy never gave him an opportunity to go to drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.2. Relief denied.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801180

    Original file (ND0801180.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the severity and frequency of offenses committed by the Applicant and the lack of mitigating factors, the Board determined the “Under Other Than Honorable” discharge was the most appropriate characterization of service and 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...