Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900026
Original file (ND0900026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081001
Characterization of Service Received: OTHER THAN HONORABLE
Narrative Reason for Discharge: MISCONDUCT DUE TO CIVILIAN CONVICTION
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20010820 - 20020825     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020826     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20041022      Highest Rank/Rate: MM3
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 19 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 78
Evaluation M arks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      SSDR NDSM GWOTSM GWOTEM BATTLE “E” NUC

Period of Lost Time Per DD 215 : 20040419-20041022 (185 days)

NJP : S CM : SPCM: Retention Warning Counseling :

C C :
- NFIR : Offense: NFIR
Sentence : NFIR

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 28 April 2005, Article 1910-144, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Civilian Conviction.

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. Employment opportunities .
2. Discharge was inequitable because it was due to a civilian conviction.

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0508             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall OTHER THAN HONORABLE .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT DUE TO A CIVILIAN CONVICTION .
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 paragpragh concerning , regarding .

Issue2 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he was told by his attorney to plead guilty to civilian charges; he claims at the time of the incident he was only defending himself. 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 one CC for charges unknown as the information is not contained in the member ’ s service record. However, a service member may be separated based on commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the offense warrants separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge. There is no requirement for adjudication by judicial or non-judicial proceedings, but the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. T he Board determined the command relied on a preponderance of the evidence from the civilian conviction which, at the time, support ed the basis for separation due to commission of serious offense(s). The Applicant did not provide any documentation or evidence in support of his request. Since the preponderance of evidence support ed the basis for separation and characterization of service, the Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

For the edification of the Appl i cant, t he 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. Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for 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, 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101094

    Original file (ND1101094.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20010830 - 20011003Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20011004Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060808Highest Rank/Rate:MM3Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 06 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 32EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902286

    Original file (ND0902286.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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800728

    Original file (ND0800728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the lack of evidence submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800890

    Original file (ND0800890.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of the Naval Service and falls far short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service. ” 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901701

    Original file (ND0901701.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900700

    Original file (ND0900700.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In fact, the Applicant must have had legal representation in order to properly undergo the request for a separation in lieu of trial by court-martial to his command. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900318

    Original file (ND0900318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends the characterization of service he received upon discharge should be based on his first enlistment and thus he requests a “General (Under Honorable Conditions).” For his first enlistment, the Applicants service was characterized as “Honorable.” The Applicant reenlisted on 5 December 2003 for 4 more years, which was 7 months before his first enlistment would have expired.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900821

    Original file (ND0900821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of his service,offenses committed, and the lack of post-service documentation.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801269

    Original file (ND0801269.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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700090

    Original file (ND0700090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically with regard to an impropriety or inequity there is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support her request for an upgrade in the characterization of her service. To the contrary the record documents that the Applicant was properly processed in accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Article 1910-120, SEPARATION BY REASON OF CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT - PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS. Characterization...