Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900041
Original file (ND0900041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YN2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081006
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)      19860731 - 19870422     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19870423     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020115      Highest Rank/Rate: YN2
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 23 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 78
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 4.0 ( 9 ) Behavior: 3.8 ( 9 ) OTA: 3.96

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2)

Periods of UA : 0630, 19930119 - 2300, 19930123 (4 days, 16 hours, 30 minutes)
0930, 19930610 - 1555, 19930616 (6 days, 6 hours, 25 minutes)
0800, 19930716 - 1155, 20020107 (3097 days, 3 hours 55 minutes)

NJP :
- 19890104 :       Article 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use of cocaine )
         Awarded: Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19890105 :       For drug abuse.

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), Change 29, effective 11 July 2000 until 21 August 2002,
Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .

 C . 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 .

D 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 and Article 112a .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Mitigating circumstances.

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 IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to circumstances which mitigated her misconduct. Specifically, she contends the misconduct which led to her separation was a panicked response to threatened charges against her for illegal activities committed by her husband. The Applicant also cites emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her husband; the removal of her children by the Department of Children and Family Services due to sexual abuse of her daughter by her husband; and that she was abducted by her husband and held against her will . 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 retention warning and one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a ( Drug use, w rongful use or of cocaine). The NDRB advises the Applicant certain serious offenses warrant separation from the service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. Violations of this policy result in, at a minimum, mandatory processing for an administrative separation which usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.

The Applicant was not separated following her NJP for drug abuse , which is highly unusual, but was retained on active duty. The Applicant subsequently went UA in violation of Article 86 for a period in excess of eight years. Violation of Article 86 for a period of more than 30 days is also 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 Applicant surrendered to military control on 7 January 2002 and promptly requested separation with an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” in order to avoid trial by court martial for the U CMJ violation of Article 86. The record of evidence shows the Applicant waived her right to speak with counsel before signing her request for separation. The NDRB notes the Applicant submitted no documentation to support her statements or her upgrade. Furthermore, the Applicant states in her letter attached to her DD-293 she never reported any of the incidents she outlines to the police which included: domestic violence; physical and mental abuse; theft of a friends blank checkbook and ID card by her husband; attempts to defraud the government through bad checks written by her husband; being abducted and held against her will by her husband and sexual misconduct by her husband against their daughter . The NDRB therefore must reach a decision based only upon the available record of evidence which does not support the Applicant’s contention . The Board found the Applicant’s claims of mitigating circumstances were without merit and determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the offenses committed 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900648

    Original file (ND0900648.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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801367

    Original file (ND0801367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For the record, the Applicant had requested on his DD Form 293 to change the narrative reason to “Hardship/Medical.” During the Applicant’s pre-board meeting with the NDRB representative, the Applicant decided not to request the change because he did not have any documentation to warrant this request. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800600

    Original file (ND0800600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends she is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the only evidence against her was her own admission of drug use. ” 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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge, but warranted an upgraded based on post-service conduct. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801528

    Original file (ND0801528.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board has determined an upgrade is not warranted at this time based on the seriousness of the offense committed and the evidence of post service employment was not sufficient to mitigate the misconduct which resulted in her discharge. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900365

    Original file (ND0900365.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record of service. The NDRB 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901254

    Original file (ND0901254.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 service, the UCMJ violations involved, and the lack of post-service documentation, 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801907

    Original file (MD0801907.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the NDRB can appreciate the Applicant’s desire to make a better life for himself and his family, to warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing and documented. ” 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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801559

    Original file (ND0801559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. The NDRB 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900627

    Original file (ND0900627.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a (Drug use) is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service, grade or record 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. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801439

    Original file (ND0801439.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB advises the Applicant that despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline.However, in the Applicant case, the evidence reflects he committed numerous offenses during this enlistment, thus contradicting his allegation the discharge is based on one isolated incident.The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by...