Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900022
Original file (ND0900022.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081001
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)      19910417 - 19920310     Active:   19920311 - 20000622 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000623     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years 23 MONTHS Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050228      Highest Rank/Rate: HM2
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 06 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 90
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.7 ( 4 ) Behavior: 2.7 ( 4 ) OTA: 3.42

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NMCAM GCM (4) NDSM (2) NMCOSR (4) MUCR (4) Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF : N JP : S CM : NFIR SPCM: NFIR C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 120 (Rape and c arnal k nowledge) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity .
2. Bias in handling of his case by his command.
3 . Insufficient representation by appointed military counsel.
4. Punishment of prohibiting reenlistment is unfair.
 5. Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0129             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall 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 this Issue.

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his record of service. 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 available to the NDRB does not contain record s of NJP, a trial by court-martial or documents related to his discharge. Therefore, the NDRB relied heavily upon the presumption of regularity in reaching a decision on this Issue. The Applicant’s statement included with his DD-293 Application states he “…reluctantly entered a plea of guilty to 2 of 3 charges in return for the 3 rd charge being dropped and receiving a General Administrative discharge.” Based upon the incident reports in this case which are contained in the record , the NDRB presumes one of these charges was for violating Article 120 ( Rape and carnal knowledge; i ndecent exposure) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Violation of Article 120 is considered a serious offense which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court - martial. The command did not did not seek a punitive discharge by court - martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge . For the edification of the Applicant, the Navy Personnel Manual in effect at the time of his discharge directed mandatory administrative separation processing in all cases involving, among other acts, indecent exposure. The Applicant should also understand that d espite a S ailor’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 Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to bias in the handling of his case by his chain of command. The Applicant specifically contends the Command Master Chief, Executive Officer and Commanding Officer were all female with an “obvious bias towards “the victim”, another female…” The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention as being without merit. There is no evidence the command acted improperly. Furthermore, the evidence in the record reflects written statements by the Applicant fully indicating he sexually exposed himself and made comments of a sexual nature. The fact the command accepted the Applicant’s plea bargain allowing a discharge characterizations of “Genera l (Under Honorable Conditions)” service when it could have sought a punitive discharge with the possibility of a less favorable characterization shows the command was not intent on awarding the maximum punishment to the Applicant. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and a n upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the military counsel appointed to his case did not provide sufficient advice and did not actively help in his defense. The NDRB


rejects the Applicant’s contention. If the Applicant felt he was not properly represented at the time of his trial, he should have sought assistance then. Additionally, the Applicant has not submitted any evidence supporting his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, nor does the record contain any. The evidence of record clearly reflect s the Applicant admitted in writing to sexually exposing himself and making comments of a sexual nature. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate based on military counsel not providing sufficient advice.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends the “RE-4” code was unfairly awarded as punishment even though his court-martial found no reason to separate him. The NDRB again rejec ts the Applicant’s contention because he agreed to accept such a discharge in exchange for pleas of guilty to two of the charges against him. The awarding of an “RE-4” reentry code is typical for discharges processed under Article 1910-142 “ SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE ” of the MILPERSMAN. As identified in Issue 1, the NDRB cannot change an awarded Re-enlistment code; the Applicant must petition the Board for Correction of Naval Record s for this action.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of his post-service conduct. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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. 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 companies, 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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

The Applicant provided evidence of an Honorable discharge from the Army National Guard on 17 May 2007 and provided statements regarding employment and continued Reserve service. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct did not mitigate the misconduct which precipitated the discharge. To warrant an upgrade 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 the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. Should the Applicant feel his post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.

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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500922

    Original file (ND1500922.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1997_Navy | ND97-01369

    Original file (ND97-01369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND 97-01369 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 970909, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to at least a general/under honorable conditions. 950329: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to civil conviction as evidenced by guilty plea in Superior Court.950329: Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901660

    Original file (ND0901660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    His discharge was in error.3. Based on the Applicant’s civilian conviction, his command administratively processed him for separation. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700923

    Original file (ND0700923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues 3 & 4: ().A Sailor may be separated for a commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was marred by the award of one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 134 (Wrongfully commit an indecent act).A violation of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000811

    Original file (ND1000811.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was advised that he was being processed under a dual basis for separation: Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) in accordance with Articles 1910-142 and 1910-144 of the MILPERSMAN. In accordance with Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN, “ When an administrative board finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports one or more of the reasons for separation and recommends retention, but the Separation Authority recommends...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01476

    Original file (ND03-01476.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. On 20010710, the Applicant was discharged by reason of convenience of the government – review action with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As noted above, a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was merited based upon the Applicant’s unauthorized absence.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000828

    Original file (ND1000828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115 (1)

    Original file (ND01-01115 (1).rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1 states, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01115

    Original file (ND01-01115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020604. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1 states, “My discharge was solely based on one incident in 8 years of service with no other incidents.” The applicant was found guilty at NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order). Relief is not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801265

    Original file (ND0801265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19970530- 19970806Active: 19970807 - 20020407 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020408Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20030310Length of Service: Years Months2 DaysEducation Level: 16Age at Enlistment:23AFQT: 99Highest Rank/Rate:HM2EvaluationMarks:Performance: 3.0(1) Behavior:2.0(1)OTA: 2.29Awards and Decorations (per DD...