Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900149
Original file (ND0900149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-DCFN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081028
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)      19990226 - 19990307     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19990308     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20000908      Highest Rank/Rate: DC3
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 01 D a y
Education Level:        AFQT: 75
Evaluation M arks: Performance: 3.0 ( 1 ) Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 ) OTA: 3.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA : 20000420 – 20000814 (116 days)

NJP :
- 20000413 : Art icle 92 ( NFIR ) , 3 specifications
Awarded : CC FOR 30 DAYS Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warning Counseling :

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 :





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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Reenlistment opportunity.
2. Misconduct due to mitigating circumstances .

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0114             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

 : 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 his misconduct was due to mitigating circumstances in his family life, w hich caused his poor judgment. 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 re cord of service was marred by 1 N JP for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and an un - adjudicated violation of A rticle 86 (U A, for 116 days ) . These 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 Applicant chose a s eparation in l ieu of t rial by court-m artial for his Article 86 violation; the command agreed and processed him for an administrative discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial .

The Applicant claimed his wife was bi-polar and a manic-depressive at the time when he was in the service. During a separation from his wife due to military duties she allegedly attempted suicide and he was removed from his ship duties to attend to his wife, who subsequently asked him to leave the Navy. The Board presumes this is what generated his 116 day UA as he failed to report back for duty from emergency leave.

The Applicant’s service record has no documentation to support these issues and even if the Applicant’s wife were suffering from disorders, those disorders would not justify a 116 day period of UA from the service member . Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, he attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members. These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, and even Navy medic ine, all provide services to members of the military and their family , regardle ss of grade, in times of need and separation. The Board determined without any supporting documentation to add clarity and foundation to the Applicant’s claim that the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

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; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) 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.

Besides the Applicant s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation or evidence on his behalf. 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. Should the Applicant feel his post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are 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

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 s of the UCMJ : Article 86 (UA) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) .


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801097

    Original file (ND0801097.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Extracted from CO, TRIDENT Refit Facility letter 20050624].NJP:SCM:SPCM:CC:Retention Warning Counseling:NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20070510 NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: ND06-00888 NDRB Documentary Review Findings: NO CHANGE WARRANTED 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401252

    Original file (MD1401252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901608

    Original file (ND0901608.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his DD Form 214 indicates that he was separated for misconduct and assigned a separation code of HKA, indicating that he waived his right to an administrative board. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500211

    Original file (ND1500211.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 change to HONORABLE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PARENTHOOD OR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000546

    Original file (MD1000546.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900766

    Original file (ND0900766.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.Should the Applicant feel their post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902154

    Original file (ND0902154.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901002

    Original file (MD0901002.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-, USMC Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090310 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20020930 - 20030706 Active: 20030707 – 20061014 HON Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20061015 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801066

    Original file (MD0801066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801863

    Original file (ND0801863.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the Applicant may feel his family circumstances contributed to his misconduct, the record of evidencedoes not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due to his wife’s pregnancy or his youth and immaturity.The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on the Applicant’s claim of mitigating circumstances would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the...