Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900304
Original file (ND0900304.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081125
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)      20060906 - 20061112     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20061113     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20071001      Highest Rank/Rate: CSSR
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level: ? (No GED or HS diploma: had some college credits to get into Navy) AFQT: 40
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 1.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 1.0

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20070723 :       Art icle 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards a senior petty officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation)
                  Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20070907 :      Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)
         Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer)
                  Awarded: Susp ended:

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20070205 :       For deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct. As evidence by numerous negative entries on your Recruit Personnel Data record (Hard Card) to i nc lude: Refusal to train to wit: n on-compliance with battle station training phase requirements, failure to follow orders and instructions including swim-jump qualifications and substandard performance.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         , GRADE RATE OR RANK should read: “ CSSR ”
         , PAY GRADE should read: “ E-1 ”
NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPARATION should read: “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”
        
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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 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 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer), Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards a Senior Petty Officer) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation).





        


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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Applicant claims her m isconduct was due to mitigating circumstances .

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0827             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant . The Applicant’s record of service included NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning , and non - judicial punishment s (NJP s ) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commission officer), Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards a senior petty officer: using vulgar language ) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation : Having sex on board a Naval vessel ). Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified for Administrative Separation Processing, the Applicant elected rights to consult with qualified counsel and to submit a written statement for consideration to the separating authority.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her misco nduct was due to her allegedly being sexually assaulted by two person s aboard the USS TORTUGA . From the time the Applicant was being recruited until her discharge, she has ha d a tumultuous ten months in the Navy. During her MEPS medical examination, it was noted and recorded twice that she was extremely immature. While at boot camp, the Applicant was counseled due to her deficiencies in performance and/or conduct as evidence d by numerous negative entries in her Recruit Personnel Data record (Hard Card) to include: r efusal to train to wit, non-compliance with battle station training phase requirements, failure to follow orders and instructions including swim-jump qualifications and substandard performance. On 29 November 2006, s he was evaluated by medical staff due to her having occupational problems. On 19 December 2006, the Applicant was again evaluated at the Recruit Evaluation Unit (REU). She was given a battery of psychological tests to assist in the diagnostic evaluation. Her tests results suggested significant problem areas. Specifically, she appears to have responded in a naively defensive manner, portraying herself as a person of unusually high virtue and morality. The Applicants responses also suggest oppositional an d histrionic/theatrical traits. At that time, the Applicant said she was being put out of the Navy because nobody liked her. It was noted on 1 February 2007, that the Applicant was supposed to be discharged due to occupational problems, but for some reason , the separation never took place and she was allowed to transfer out to the fleet.

After training, the A pplicant reported to the USS TORTUGA (LSD 46) in April 2007, where she wa s the subject of two NJPs in five months which resulted in her discharge on 1 October 2007 due to Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense . Her first NJP o n 23 July 2007, the Applicant was charged with having sex on board a naval vessel. The commanding officer commented that the Applicant admitted to having sexual intercourse on board ship with two different individuals and shows no remorse. In conjunction with this NJP , t he Applicant was seen by medical personnel on the USS TORTUGA for suicidal ideations. Although the Ap plicant claims it was due to the alleged rape, the written medical records show it was due to having other issues in her division. She stated “the guy’s in my division pick on me and harass me.” Other than the harassment allegation , she ha d no complaints with her job. She admitted making this statement so that people would listen to her. She denie d anyone E-6 and above “ ma d e her feel this way. ” During this medical visit, the Applicant denied having any other issues. N o entry in her me dical records was found that involved hospitalized for a week aboard ship due to suicidal ideations. On 4 July 2007 , the Applicant was seen again by medical personnel complaining of nausea, dizziness, and soreness on upper body including arms. The Applicant stated that she thought she was pregnant. She added that she was sexually active and had unprotected sex some time in mid to late June. The Applicant denies using birth control and expressed her desire to get pregnant.
Due to the Applicant ’ s documented persona l instability, the Board discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge action as it pertains to the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Board determined that a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision in support of the Applicant ha d no bearing on the NDRB’ s decision on propriety and equity of her discharge . As a support organization, t he VA errs in support of applicants in order to provide world -class medical and educational support , whereas the NDRB must base discharge upgrade decisions on matters of record and fact. In the Board ’ s opinion, the command acted appropriately at the time of discharge based on the circumstances and facts at hand. Besides the VA medical evaluations, which were done after her discharge, t he Applicant provided no documentation (i.e. Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI) report, criminal investigation regarding the allegations of sexual assault, etc.) that supports her claim s . On her separation physical dated 12 September 2007, she admitted her misconduct by stating “I am getting discharged because I slept with my LPO. ” Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additi onal Reviews and Post-Service Conduct .



ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe 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 : 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. 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. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Association of Service Disable Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted 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 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’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 BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB 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 is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended 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 BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (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; attendance at 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 in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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 NDRB 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-01157

    Original file (ND04-01157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 920826 - 920830 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 920831 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00988

    Original file (ND03-00988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00988 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030527. According to S_’s statement, my statement, and the memorandum that was given to the defense counsel at that time,should prove that S_ was at least 12yrs of age and that I had reason to believe that she and her friends were 16yrs of age or older. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001478

    Original file (ND1001478.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service did include one non-judicial punishment for violations of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer, 1 specification).Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, her command administratively processed her for separation.The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000782

    Original file (ND1000782.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. here is no evidence in the record nor provided by the Applicant regarding the disciplinary action taken against the officer by the command. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01239

    Original file (ND03-01239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.021123: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.021123: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300585

    Original file (MD1300585.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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400279

    Original file (ND1400279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant implied in her DD Form 293 statement that her PTSD was not a result of a deployment in support of a contingency operation, and so her case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).However, based on the Applicant’s claim of PTSD due to a sexual assault, the Naval Discharge Review Board included a psychiatrist on the board.The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901806

    Original file (ND0901806.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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200470

    Original file (MD1200470.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01245

    Original file (ND03-01245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030718. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant contend “what I was charged for, in the...