Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801874
Original file (ND0801874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AE1, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080909
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19890814 - 19890911        Active: 19890912 – 1995031 3 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19950314     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years 31 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20010126      Highest Rank/Rate: AE1
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 13 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 67
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 4.0 ( 6 ) Behavior: 3.8 ( 6 ) OTA: 3.83
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM NUCR SSDR(4) SASM (3) AF EM CGSOSM GCM(3) NER NAM KLM (KUWAIT)

Periods of UA : 20001016-20010106 (82 DAYS)

NJP :
- 20010118 : Art icle 86 (UA ), 20001016-20010106 (82 DAYS )
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19890912 TO 19950303 ”
        
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 :
Oth er Documentation :


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Mitigating circumstances.
2. Offered opportunity to remain in the Navy at NJP.
3. Record of service.
 4. Applicant had sufficient leave to cover absence.
 5. Discharged at end of contract.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0114             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 he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to circumstances which mitigated his misconduct. Specifically, the Applicant states he was going through a divorce at the time and his wife took their daughter away to an unknown location. 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 NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) , for 82 days. Violation of Article 86 for more than thirty days is considered a serious offense, punishable by 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. While the Applicant may feel his family problems were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due to those problems. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his commanding officer offered to retain the Applicant in the Navy at his NJP . The Applicant contends he declined the offer and was subsequently discharged from the Navy. The Applicant appears to understand his discharge was part of the punishment awarded at his NJP. For the edification of the Applicant, the administrative separation process is entirely separate from NJP. In the Applicant’s case, the command initiated the administrative separation process immediately after his NJP. The NDRB notes the Applicant was notified in writing of the separation process against him on 19 January 2001. The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived his rights to consult with an attorney, to submit statements on his behalf, and he waived his rights to an Administrative Separation Board. The NDRB determined the record of evidence does not indicate any improper or inequitable actions by the Applicant’s command in handling his case. An upgrade to his discharge would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a single period of misconduct. D espite a Sailor ’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade based on the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he had sufficient leave to cover his days spent UA. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention as having no bearing on his


misconduct. The record clearly shows the Applicant was absent without leave authorized by his command for 82 days. The NDRB determined a discharge upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because he was discharged at the end of his contracted service. The NDRB rejects this Issue as having no bearing on his misconduct. The Applicant’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to merit discharge from the naval service regardless of when the misconduct occurred. Furthermore, the record of evidence shows he was discharged on 26 January 2001, but his end of contract was not until 13 October 2001. The NDRB determined a discharge 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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 31, dated 20 February 2001, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 86 (UA).


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

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000999

    Original file (MD1000999.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900563

    Original file (MD0900563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB therefore only considered the Applicant’s request to upgrade his characterization of service to “General (Under Honorable Conditions).”: 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 the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801467

    Original file (ND0801467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Feels the military should train service members about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The Board determined his request for an upgrade was without merit.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801516

    Original file (MD0801516.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700685

    Original file (MD0700685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20000829 - 20001015 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20001016Years Contracted:4; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060613Length of Service: 05 Yrs 07Mths 28 DysLost Time:Days UA: 231 Days Confined: 59Education...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601125

    Original file (MD0601125.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    20010501: Applicant from unauthorized absence 0800 (surrendered).20010806: NJP for violation(s) of UCMJ: Article 86: UA (AWOL) from 0730, 20010301 to 0123, 20010502, Award: Forfeiture of $584.00 for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days. UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS (20020808) SJA review (date): (20020814)Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING GENERAL, 2D FORCE SERVICE SUPPORT GROUP (20020816)Narrative Reason directed: MISCONDUCT DUE TO A Characterization directed: Date Applicant...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700583

    Original file (MD0700583.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 2 (Equity): With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency (leniency). After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. Applicant Discharged: 20011113 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service: Service and/or Medical Record:Other Records: Related...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801792

    Original file (MD0801792.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700949

    Original file (ND0700949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20080103Location:Washington D.C Representation: 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. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801473

    Original file (ND0801473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant requested for the NDRB to consider his post-service conduct in support of his request for an upgrade in his characterization to “Honorable.” Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he provided an additional character reference and other post-service related documents on his behalf. appropriate based on the Applicant’s post-service conduct.After a...