Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900282
Original file (ND0900282.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EN3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081119
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)      20010719 - 20020428     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020429     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040109      Highest Rank/Rate: EN3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 11 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 87
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.42

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF : SCM: SPCM: CC:

NJP :
- Unknown : Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order or regulation or dereliction of duty )
Article 116 (Riot or breach of peace);
 Article 128 (Assault)
 [No further information found in record. Extracted from Eval signed 1 July 2003]
- 20030816 : Art icle 117 ( Provoking speeches or gestures)
Awarded : Susp ended : Suspension vacated 20030826

Retention Warning Counseling : 1

         - 20031003 : For poor military performance and sleeping on watch/improper watch standing.

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. Isolated incident lead to discharge.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0226             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PERSONALITY DISORDER .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because his discharge was based on one incident which resulted in his being falsely labeled with Borderline Personality Disorder. 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 one retention warning and two NJPs for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order); Article 116 (Riot or breach of peace); Article 117 (Provoking speech or gestures) and Article 128 (Assault). Violations of Article 92, 116, and 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 to retain the Applicant on active duty. The Applicant was later diagnosed with “ Occupational Problem ” and “ Borderline Personality Disorder ” on 7 January 2004. The record of evidence does not support the Applicant’s contention. Although he was only diagnosed with these disqualifying personality disorders on one occasion , his record demonstrates repeated difficulties adapting to the Navy. Furthermore, the Applicant did not submit any evidence showing the diagnosis was made in error. The NDRB determined the Applicant was properly discharged based on a valid medical diagnosis and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ viol ations involved.

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), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 19 June 2005, Article 1910-122, Separation By Reason of Convenience of the Government - Personality Disorder(s).

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, Article 116 and Article 128 .


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 | 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101187

    Original file (ND1101187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.The Applicant met the requirements for separation due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) by violating UCMJ Articles 92, 95, 116, and 128. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001334

    Original file (ND1001334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 01 April 2009, the Separation Authority reviewed the chain of command’s recommendation for separation and determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported separation and further directed that the Applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service and that he be assigned a re-entry code of RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment). The Separation Authority determined that separation in the Applicant’s case was proper and further, that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201632

    Original file (ND1201632.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400982

    Original file (MD1400982.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102163

    Original file (ND1102163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational benefits.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. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00994

    Original file (ND03-00994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT Ex- ND0300994 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030516. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000749

    Original file (ND1000749.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: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A.Naval Military Personnel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700253

    Original file (ND0700253.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date Applicant Responded to Notification:19910515 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): (19910603) Separation Authority (date): BUPERS WASHINGTON DC (19910617)Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 19920416 Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardRelated to Military Service:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700397

    Original file (ND0700397.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was marred by three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer),...