Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801757
Original file (ND0801757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080819
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) 20040227 - 20040322                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20040323      Period of E nlistment : Years Extension   Date of Discharge: 20060727
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 05 D a ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 69
Highest Rank /Rate :       SN        Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

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

NJP :
- 20040603 : Art icle 92 (Violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully making racial offensive jokes)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20060420 : Article 128 (Assault)
Awarded: EMI Susp ended :

- 20060706 : Art icle 90 (Disobey lawful order).
 Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful order) , 2 specifications
                  - Specification 1: (Wrongfully having unauthorized paintball guns)
                  - Specification 2: (Wrongfully having a visitor in BEQ room)
Articl e 107 (False official statement)
Article 134 (Adultery)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

Retention Warnings:
- 20051116 : For failure to meet Ph ysical Readiness Test standards
- 20040603 : For violation of lawful written order

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) :

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 of the UCMJ, Article 90, 92, 107 or 134 .





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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Only had a paintball gun in barracks overnight.

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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his discharge was based only on one incident involving a paintball gun stored in the BEQ room. Specifically, he contends he was told to get the gun out of the BEQ by the duty officer at 2330. Due to the late hour he was allowed to remove it the following morning. However, he was charged with disobeying an order to remove it before he could take it away the following day . 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 retention warnings and three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Art icle 90 (Willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order) , 3 specifications ; Art icle 107 (False official statement); Article 128 (Assault); and Article 134 (Adultery). Violation s of Article 90, 9 2 , 107, or 134 are considered serious offense s which are punishable by a 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 with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service, when the less favorable “Under Other Than Honorable” characterization was warranted.

The Applicant appears to understand his discharge was based upon the single incident involving the wrongful storage of a paint ball gun in the barracks. The record of evidence does show he was charged with violating UCMJ Article 90 and Article 92 regarding this incident and subsequently received punish ment at NJP on 6 July 2006. However, the Applicant was also punished for an additional violation of Article 92, as well as violations of Article 107 and Article 134 at the same NJP. Furthermore, the Applicant was also the subject of two previous NJPs for violation s of Article 92 and Article 128. On 17 July 2007 the Applicant was notified by his commanding officer he was being processed for administrative separation for two reasons; due to a pattern of misconduct (three NJPs) and due to the commission of a serious offense (Article s: 90, 92, 107 and 134). The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention his discharge was based only on the incident involving the paint ball gun because the record o f evidence clearly refutes his contention. 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


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 | 2007_Navy | ND0701156

    Original file (ND0701156.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 the characterization of his 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801337

    Original file (ND0801337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (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 ADDENDUM: Information for the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901972

    Original file (MD0901972.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When this was considered along with his prior outstanding service record, the NDRB found relief to be warranted on equitable grounds.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801541

    Original file (MD0801541.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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant failed to provide any additional statements and evidence of post The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801298

    Original file (MD0801298.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.However, the Applicant submitted no verifiable documents as mentioned in the above paragraph for the Board to consider in a clemency review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Court-Martial proceedings, Discharge Process, Post Service Conduct and Accomplishments,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801069

    Original file (MD0801069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of “ General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, as determined appropriate under Issue 1 above, is an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade to “Honorable” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600749

    Original file (MD0600749.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-PVT, USMCDocket No. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The factual basis for this recommendation was your three nonjudicial punishments, one evidencing your willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer and your uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900352

    Original file (ND0900352.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 granted 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801228

    Original file (ND0801228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the limited time served 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 ADDENDUM:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501206

    Original file (MD1501206.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.