Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801749
Original file (ND0801749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-OSSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080819
Characterization of Service Received: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DUE TO A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19990708 - 19990823                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19990824      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20020716
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 16 D a ys       Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 77
Highest Rank /Rate :       OS3       Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.0 ( 2 )   Behavior: 3.0 ( 2 )         OTA: 3.00
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):

NJP :
- 20011101 : Art icle 113 (Misbehavior or sentinel or lookout)
Awarded : Susp ended : Vacated 20020318

- 20020318 : Art icle 90 (Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer)
Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation)
 Article 107 (False official statement)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20020515 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation)
Article 86 (Absence without leave)
 Awarded : FOR 3 DAYS Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:
- 20011101 : For violation of UCMJ Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout)

- 20020318 : For violation of UCMJ Article 90 (Disobeying a lawful order by a sup erior commissioned officer) and
Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful written order or regulation)

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .

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 91, 92, 107, and 113.




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Seeking a job with law enforcement.
2. Punishment was inequitable.
3 . Post s ervice conduct .

Decision

Date : 20 08 1204             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT DUE TO A PATTERN OF 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 , regarding .
: ( ) . The Applicant claims he was “guilty by association”, his misconduct was minor and he did not deserve to be discharge d. 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 served 2 ½ years on active duty. During that time, h i s record of service was marred by two retention warnings and three NJP’ s for violations of the U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); A rt icle 90 (Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer) ; Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) ; Article 107 (False official statement ) and Art icle 113 (Misbehavior or sentinel or lookout). Violations of these Articles are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge a nd confinement is authorized if adjudged by a special or general court m artial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

The Applicant’s behavior was not a one time minor infraction. He was found guilty of repeated incidents of serious misconduct which occurred over an extended period of time. He was given ample opportunities by his command to make better choices, as noted by his two retention warnings, yet failed to do so. The Applicant did not provide any evidence he was not responsible for or should not be held accountable for his behavior. In accordance with navy policy a S ailor can be processed for a Pattern of Misconduct discharge if he has been a subject of two or mor e NJP’ s : The Applicant during his naval career had three. A r eview of available records reveals nothing to indicate the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disc ipline i n the United States Navy . Considering the above, t he Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a n upgrade to “H onorable ” would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant states he has had the same job for over five years and desires to be a contributing member of society and to his community. He is not a drug user and if he were guilty of misconduct, it was over many years ago. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subs equent 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 u nder review, is considered . The key word here is “Outstanding”. The Board is looking for actions that go beyond simply daily living . Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record ; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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; and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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.

Although t he Applicant states he has matured and changed, he did not provide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request for an upgrade. The Applicant's 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 the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of 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 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801923

    Original file (ND0801923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge,based on a pattern of misconduct, was caused by his inability to arrive at work in a timely manner due to a lack of proper transportation for a period of time. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001018

    Original file (ND1001018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401260

    Original file (MD1401260.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900370

    Original file (ND0900370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Discharged while mentally ill and never received treatment or screening for bipolar disorder with psychotic features. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700604

    Original file (ND0700604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by the award of two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92 (Dereliction of Duty), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout). ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801604

    Original file (ND0801604.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 submitted a statement with his DD-293 Application claiming employment, education efforts, and participation in his church and in other community service. The Board determined the characterization...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900536

    Original file (MD0900536.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. However, the Applicant is advised 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 warrants clemency. The Board determined the characterization...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801505

    Original file (ND0801505.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant did not provide any evidence, nor was there any contained in her service record, that a medical condition was the cause of her misconduct.The Applicant has requested an upgrade of her discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” , was an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01166

    Original file (ND03-01166.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge.