Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801752
Original file (ND0801752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, USNR
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080819
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: DUE TO PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: NONE             Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19960820     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19990521
Length of Service : Inactive: Y ear s M onth s 26 D a ys Active: Y ear M onth s 06 D a ys    
Education Level: Age at Enlistment:   AFQT: 44
Highest Rank /Rate :       AN        Evaluation M arks: Performance:   NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

NJP :
- 19990318 : Art icle 86 (U A) from 19990225-19990302 (5 DAYS)
Article 92 (Failure to obey other lawful order)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 19990506 : Art icle 86 (Unauthorized absence) , 4 spec ification s :
         - Spec ification 1: UA from 19990328-19990329 (1 day )
         - Spec ification 2 : UA from 19990330-19990408 (9 days )
         - Spec ification 3: UA from 19990415-19990429 (14 days )
          - Spec ification 4: UA from 19990429-19990505 (6 days )
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s dd 214

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

         “ JKA ”
        
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:              


Related to Post-Service Period (cont):

Additional Statements :
 From Applicant:        From Representat ion :    From Congress m ember :

Other Documentation (Describe) :
                  - Letter from N . A . , M.D. Spine Surgery

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 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Desires to use education benefits.
2. Feels command should have done more to assist him.
3 . Post service 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 admits culpability in his misconduct but states the command could have done more to help him. 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 1 year and 8 month record of service was marred by two NJP’s for repeated periods of UA . He started his periods of UA after he had served for 1 ½ years, long enough to have adjusted to military life and to have adopted the naval cor e values as his own. While he may now feel his command could have done more, he provides no documentation to refute the presumption they did try to help him at the time of his misconduct. Additionally, the Applicant does not make clear what his expectation of the command was in relationship to the command doing more.

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 “ Gener al (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 5 periods of UA during a 4 month period is considered significant misconduct. A re view of available records reveals nothing to indicate the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disc ipline in the U . S . Navy . The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization, “ G eneral (Under Other Than Honorable Conditions) ”, was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant states he has bettered his life since his discharge. 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. He only submitted one letter from his surgeon recommending he find employment which did not require lifting an object heavier than 10 lbs. 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, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and w ithout having the necessary post service documentation to review, 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 | ND0801135

    Original file (ND0801135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 offenseshe committed. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002148

    Original file (ND1002148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative board voted 3-0 that the evidence supported commission of a serious offense and 3-0 to separate with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. 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 separation shall remainMISCONDUCT. ”...

  • 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801578

    Original file (ND0801578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.The Applicant provided no statements on the DD Form-293. The Board determined based on the lack of post service documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801613

    Original file (ND0801613.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801424

    Original file (ND0801424.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.At this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to review in considering an upgrade and therefore relief is denied.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800695

    Original file (ND0800695.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Board determined an upgrade or change 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Additionally, the Board has no authority...

  • 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800632

    Original file (ND0800632.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore relief is 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801109

    Original file (ND0801109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...