Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900122
Original file (ND0900122.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-YNSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081023
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19900126 - 19901216     Active:            19901217 - 19940731

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19940801     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970709      Highest Rank/Rate: YNSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.3 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.9 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.49

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

Periods of UA /C ONF : UA: 0745, 19970222; 1200, 19970223; 0400, 19970224; 0500, 19970327; 0900, 19970416 /

NJP :
- 19961211 :       Article 86 (UA)
         Article 90 ( Failure to obey a lawful order )
         Article 134 (Incapacitated for duty)
          Awarded : ORAL Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19961211 :       For incapacitated for duty, disobeyed a lawful order, and unauthorized absence.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM
19901217 UNTIL 19940731 ”
         “ MILPERSMAN 3630605 ”
        
The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.
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 12 December 1997, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 90 (Failure to obey a lawful order).



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Veteran’s benefits.
2. Record of service.
3 . Isolated misconduct.
4. Discharge based on incidents in prior enlistments.

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 concerning , regarding this Issue.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a single period of 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 one retention warning and one NJP for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) , Art icle 90 (Willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer) and Article 134 (Incapacitated for duty). Violations of Article 90 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. For the edification of the Applicant certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintai n proper order and discipline. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his discharged was based on incidents which occurred in his previous enlistment. The record of evidence does not support the Applicant’s contention. The record of evidence shows the Applicant reenlisted on 1 August 1994 and received NJP on 11 December 1996. The Applicant was also given a retention warning on the date of his NJP which stated in part “Subsequent violations of the UCMJ…could result in an administrative separation under other than honorable conditions.” The Applicant’s service record documents five additional violations of Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty) between February and April 1997. Furthermore, the commanding officer’s letter recommending separation lists only the NJP under the current enlistment as the basis for separation. Finally, on 3 July 1997 the Applicant waived his right to an administrative separation board, to which he was entitled because he had more than six years of service. If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charg es at the time they were made. During a n administrative separation board, he would have had the opportunity to mount a defense against the charges against him. The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention; therefore the NDRB must rely upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge 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 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0601039

    Original file (ND0601039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:19940815Reason for Discharge MISCONDUCT - Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 19940815Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)Recommendation of Commanding Officer (date): 19940826 Discharge directed by (date):BUPERS 19940915Narrative reason directed:Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19940918...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501212

    Original file (ND0501212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicable regulations permit commanding officers, in certain types of serious misconduct, even though alleged, to make a determination as to the potential for further naval service for service members under their charge. After a review of the Applicant’s service record and evidence presented to the NDRB from the Trial Order from the Circuit Court of the City of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902485

    Original file (MD0902485.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The illegal use of drugs (Violation of Article 112a, UCMJ) is an offense requiring mandatory processing, regardless of time in service or grade, for an administrative separation that usually results in an unfavorable characterization of service at discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102070

    Original file (ND1102070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800502

    Original file (ND0800502.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Employment Opportunities Decision Date: 20080404Location: Washington D.C Representation: 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1501206

    Original file (MD1501206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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 authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800209

    Original file (ND0800209.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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700756

    Original file (ND0700756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning, two NJPs and two Summary Court-Martials (SCM) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 87 (Missing movement),Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), Article 92 (Dereliction of duty), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 134 (Drunkenness, Incapacitated for duty), and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). The Applicant contends that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800884

    Original file (ND0800884.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19900906 - 19901217 Active: 19901218 – 19941217 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19941218Period of enlistment: Years Extension Date of Discharge: 19980526Length of Service: Yrs Mths08 Dys Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 33Highest Rank/Rate: MS3 Evaluation marks: Performance: 4.0(2) Behavior: 3.9(2) OTA: 4.0 Awards and Decorations...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700333

    Original file (ND0700333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board construed this issue to mean that, had the Applicant not extended his enlistment, he would have reached his EAS and been discharged for that reason, with a characterization based on his service record, rather than for misconduct and an other than honorable characterization of service. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient post-service documentation to consider mitigating the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.In reviewing discharges,...