Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900244
Original file (ND0900244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BMSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081112
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)      19910626 - 19910717     Active:            19910718 - 19940818

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19940819     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19991115      Highest Rank/Rate: BM3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 27 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 3.9 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.80        4.0 evals
         Performance: 2.88 ( 8 )     Behavior: 1.88 ( 8 )       OTA: 3.04        5.0 evals

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol (2) (3)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 19991027 :       Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation by wrongfully appropriating the use of government furnished internet services and thereby accessing and viewing pornographic site)
         Article 107 (False official statements)
                  Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
         - 19981211 : For third time PFA Failure
         - 19990427: For mandatory separation due to PFA failures was being suspended and that he was being retained.

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 29 March 2000,
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 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 107 (False official statement).



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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Reenlistment o pportunities
2. Unjust discharge – falsely accused
Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0223             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 s , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he was falsely accused, which led to his untimely discharge from the Navy after 8 years and 4 months of service. 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 retenti on warnings and a n NJP for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 107 ( F alse official statement). Initially, these charges were going to be taken to NJP in March 1999 but the Applicant refused NJP and requested a court-martial. The command referred the charge s to a S PCM . Subsequently o n 16 July 1999, in a memorandum, the Applicant requested NJP in lieu of court-martial and agreed to waive his Administrative Discharge Board and accept a “ General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” . On 27 Oct 1999, the Applicant entered a plea of guilty, was found guilty and was expeditiously separated from the Navy. In the end , the Applicant asked for and received the discharge of his liking. These were serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for a NJP and an administrative discharge ; all as requested by the Applicant . The Board determined 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 and 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. 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 lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate. Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000860

    Original file (ND1000860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Narrative Reason for Discharge:Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN ” 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700388

    Original file (ND0700388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801602

    Original file (ND0801602.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command administratively separated the Applicant in lieu of trial by court martial.The Applicant has requested an upgrade to her discharge characterization to “Honorable”. After a thorough review of the applicant’s service record and other evidence; such as:the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and additional evidence submitted by the Applicant to the Board, it was determined that relief is warranted. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301315

    Original file (ND1301315.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900265

    Original file (ND0900265.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB therefore relied upon the presumption of regularity in this case and 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 Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500875

    Original file (ND0500875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801872

    Original file (ND0801872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100351

    Original file (ND1100351.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A separate 1 Apr 2003 court conviction (Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court) was found within the record for violation of a protective order(arrest date on or about 21 Feb 2003), which resulted in a 12-month suspended jail sentence.Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation.When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure on 21 Aug 2003, the Applicant exercised his right...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500309

    Original file (ND1500309.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900237

    Original file (MD0900237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Applicants record of service and his post service efforts since his discharge from the Marine Corps, the Board has determined his post service efforts were sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade to “General (Under Honorable Conditions).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, theBoard found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint...