Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900097
Original file (ND0900097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SMSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081008
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to: HARDSHIP/ANYTHING OTHER THAN MISCONDUCT

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20000831 - 20000917     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20000918     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20031002      Highest Rank/Rate: SM3
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 14 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.0 ( 4 ) Behavior: 2.0 ( 4 ) OTA: 2.67

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF : SCM: SPCM:

NJP :
- 20030821 : Art icle 86 (U A ) 20030407-20030411 (4 days)
Awarded :

- 20010608 : Article 92(Fail to obey a lawful general regulation)
Article 12 8 (Assault consummated by battery )
Awarded: Susp ended :

Civilian A rrest : 2
          - 20030609: Charged with assault and battery ; t ri al date pending at time of discharge.
          - 20030620: Charged with felony shoplifting ; t rial date pending at time of discharge.

C C :
- 2 0021205 : Offense: Misdemeanor destruction of property
         Sentence: Jail for 60 days (suspended), unsupervised probation for 2 years and court cost of $245. 5 0.
Retention Warning Counseling: 2

- 20010608 : For failing to obey a lawful general regulation by engaging in an unduly fami liar relationship with a senior
 sailor in your direct chain of command and assault consummated by battery.
- 20030428: Date extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20030926.
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 January 2004, 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 92 and Article 128 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Education opportunity.
3 . Employment opportunity.
4. Passage of time.
 5. Mitigating circumstances.
6. Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0212             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 s concerning , , and regarding .
: ( ) . The Applicant contends her misconduct was mitigated by circumstances which led her to make poor decisions. Specifically she contends her youth and immaturity, the abuse she suffered as a child, and her guardianship for her fifteen year old sister all contributed to her misconduct. 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 two retention warnings and two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA); Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); and Article 128 ( Assault consummated by battery ). The record of evidence also shows the Applicant received on e conviction in civilian courts for destruction of property and had two additional civilian trials pending at the time of discharge for assault and felony shoplifting. Violations of Article 92 and Article 128 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. While the Applicant may feel her circumstances were the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for her misconduct or should not be held accountable for her actions due to her circumstances. The Applicant did not provide any documentation or evidence in support of her request. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends s he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because of h er 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 statements in her DD-293 Application of having matured since her discharge and having attended school. While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade. To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing and documented . 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 obtain additional evidence or post service documentation she 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 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 | ND0900309

    Original file (ND0900309.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 and personal letter, no documentation was provided for review. Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100201

    Original file (ND1100201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends she was told that she would receive an Honorable discharge six months after her separation.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900958

    Original file (ND0900958.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. By a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions,” and the narrative reason for the discharge, “Pattern of Misconduct,” shall remain as issued based on his length of service and the UCMJ violations involved. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800508

    Original file (ND0800508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated 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 REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900338

    Original file (ND0900338.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900735

    Original file (ND0900735.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service, UCMJ violations involved, and lack of post service documentation.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700942

    Original file (ND0700942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20080103Location:Washington D.C Representation: Discussion Issues 1 -2: 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’s service was marred by one discharge warning and two non-judicial punishments for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (Failure to obey a direct order), Article 107 (False Official Statement), Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900545

    Original file (ND0900545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801636

    Original file (ND0801636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :() The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because the separation was based on one isolated incident in 20 months of service and he had already warned his commanding officer and masterchief something might happen if he and another sailor were not separated. The Applicant has submitted documentation of post service conduct in support of his request for an...