Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900054
Original file (ND0900054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081007
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         NONE              Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19941019     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970520      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service :
         Active:  Years Months 02 D ays
         Inactive:        Y ear s M onth s 24 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 2.7 ( 3 ) Behavior: 2.0 ( 3 ) OTA: 2.55

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 19951018 :       Art icle 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
          Awarded : Susp ended :

- 1996080 6 :       Article 91 (Disobey lawful order) 2 specifications
         Article 92 ( Dereliction of duty)
         Awarded: Susp ended :

- 19970503 :      Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty)
         Article 92 (Disobeyed a lawful order - SIQ chit)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 19970103 :       For being repeatedly late for quarters and leaving at approximately 0800 from the Fire Watch Office and on the message board you stated you could be reached at x7417. Several Fire Watch Party Officers wasted a considerable amount of time trying to track you down because you were not at the stated phone number. Your absence was noted until approximately 1200 on the day in question.

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 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 11 December 1997),
Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

 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 91 and Article 92 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Employment opportunities.
2. 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 PATTERN OF 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 .
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of his post-service conduct. 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 three NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty); Article 91 (Willfully disobeying a petty officer); Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation). Violation of Article 91 and Article 92 are considered serious offenses 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 refer the Applicant for a court-martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge.

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 statements of employment and stable family life. The Applicant also provided copies of his passport, concealed weapon permits in various locations, and registration as a guard in California. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not strong enough to support an upgrade based on 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, “Under Other Than 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900682

    Original file (MD0900682.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 and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade 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 the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900423

    Original file (ND0900423.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a single period of misconductand he did not have a pattern of misconduct because it was based on an isolated incident “…stemming from a conflict-of-interest situation …” 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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900691

    Original file (MD0900691.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.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801787

    Original file (ND0801787.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the Board has determined the Applicant’s denial of drug use is supported by the evidence and an administrative change has been requested to change the separation authority to reflect the discharge authority as authorized by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (i.e., “1910- 142 ” , Commission of a serious offense). The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700206

    Original file (MD0700206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, on 19911004 the Applicant submitted a request for administrative discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial. (2) Steal one Government decal.Date Applicant Submitted SILT request: 19911004 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Article(s) 86, 91, 92 and 121 BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization Requested: Commanding Officer...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900360

    Original file (MD0900360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COMPLETION OR REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE.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 NDRB concurs with the Applicant’s contention his Narrative Reason for Separation should not indicate his discharge was ordered by a Court-Martial; therefore the Narrative Reason should be changed to “Completion of Required Active...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900347

    Original file (ND0900347.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Related to Post-Service Period (cont): Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation: Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900201

    Original file (ND0900201.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.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for further review. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900490

    Original file (MD0900490.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention because his record of service shows he did have the documented misconduct required to separate a Marine for a “Pattern of Misconduct.” As stated above the Applicant was given two retention warnings and one NJP during his second enlistment. The NDRB determined characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was appropriate given the Applicant’s service record; an upgrade would be inappropriate.The Applicant submitted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701068

    Original file (ND0701068.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 Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19920806 - 19930124Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19930125Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:19950315Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01Mths21 DysLost Time:Days UA: 1 Days Confined: Education...