Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900425
Original file (ND0900425.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081210
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (OTHER)
Authority for Discharge: CNPC Millington tn msg r211135zdec06

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19940829 - 19980516     Active:  19900718 – 19940828 (HON)
Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 19980517     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment : N/A
Date of Discharge: 20070129       Highest Rank/Rate: LT
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 13 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: NFIR Fitness Reports:

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): (4) JSCM ACM

 NJP:
- 20051007 :      Article 92 (Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of duties)
         Awarded: Suspended:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 98 MAY 17 ”
         “ 08 08 13 ”
         Block 12d, Total Prior Active Service, should read: “ 04 01 11 ”
“ KFF ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, 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 Representation:     From Congress member:

Other Documentation:



Detached for Cause (DFC) and Discharge Process

20050930:        Commanding Officer, USS CORPUS CHRISTI submitted a DFC on the Applicant due to unsatisfactory performance of duty for an extended period of time.

20051007:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 - Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of his duties .
         Awarded – Punitive letter of Reprimand.
200510 (date NA): Applicant appealed NJP.

20051103:        Submarine Group 7 Applicant’s NJP appeal.

20051130:        Submarine Squadron 15 submitted Report of to Commander, Navy Personnel Command recommending Applicant for retention.

20051228:        Applicant responded to Report of .

20060126:        Applicant submitted a redress of wrongs under provisions of Article 138 of the UCMJ, which was subsequently denied.

20060131:        Applicant appealed NJP for the second time, and was subsequently denied.

20060205:        Applicant submitted a second redress of wrongs under provisions of Article 138 of the UCMJ, which was subsequently denied.

20060313:        Submarine Squadron 15 recommended disapproval of Applicant's request and endorsed his complaint to Commander, Submarine Group 7 .

20060301:        Commander, Submarine Force Pacific endorsed the report of NJP, concurred with the DFC, but did not concur with show cause for retention.

20060314:        Commander, Navy Personnel Command (CNPC), approved the DFC and notified Applicant of requirement to show cause for retention in response to the report of NJP.

20060316:        Commander, Submarine Group 7 denied Applicant’s second redress of wrongs.

20060408:        Applicant acknowledged notification of show cause for retention and elected to appear before a Board of Inquiry.

20060801:        Applicant submitted an unqualified resignation, but it did not comply with CNPC direction and was, therefore, considered to be a qualified resignation.

20061205:        Commander, Navy Personnel Command, recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) that with characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct.

20061211:        Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved Applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct, with characterization of service as General (Under Honorable Conditions).

 20070129:        Applicant discharged this date.                    



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. No negative remarks or misconduct to warrant a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

Decision

Date: 20090326            Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY .
Discussion

 : ( ) . 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 NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Disobedience of a lawful order and dereliction in the performance of his duties ) and was issued a punitive letter of reprimand. The Applicant was also made subject of a Detached for Cause (DFC) due to unsatisfactory performance of duty for an extended period of time. After a lengthy appeal process the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, recommended to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), (ASN (M&RA)), the Applicant be discharged from the Navy with a characterization of “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”. The ASN (M&RA) subsequently approved the request. A time line is provided above, reflective of the DFC and discharge process for this case.

The Applicant contends there are no negative remarks or misconduct in his service record to warrant a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization. The Applicant applied to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to remove his NJP, DFC, and the recoupment of his submarine duty pay. The BCNR found the Applicant’s request to remove his NJP and DFC warranted relief and recommended the Applicant’s naval record be corrected by removing the NJP and DFC; additionally, that any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the BCNR’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from the Applicant’s record and that no such entries be added to the record in the future. The BCNR found recoupment of submarine duty pay did not warrant relief.

Based on the BCNR decision to remove the NJP and the DFC, which was the basis for separation, from the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the discharge characterization to “Honorable” and change the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. In addition, the NDRB recommends the Applicant’s separation code (block 26 of DD Form 214) be changed to reflect the BCNR’s decision.

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. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 15 December 2005 until Present, establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.
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.

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, provided 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 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 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.
Employment/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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700181

    Original file (ND0700181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Incident occurring May-July 2004)Awarded - Written Reprimand.20041222: LTR of Reprimand issued to Applicant. Officer administrative separationDischarge Process Report of Misconduct: 20050121 Show Cause Recommendation: Applicant Response: ELECTECTED TO NOT SUBMIT COMMENTS Endorsing Recommendation: CONCUR WITH COMMANDING OFFICERdate: 20050308 Show Cause Decision: CNPCdate: 20050502 Applicant Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Applicant Election: NOT FOUND IN RECORD Board of Inquiry: NONE CNPC...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601009

    Original file (ND0601009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NAVAL FORCE, EUROPE 20050831 Narrative reason directed:Characterization of directed: Date Applicant Discharged: 20051007 Additional Information Considered by Board Type of documentation submitted by the Applicant and considered by the Board Document Type #Pages Related to Period of Service:Service/Medical Record:297Other Period of Service: 0Related to Post-Service Period: Community Service:0Education: 0 Employment: 0Health/Medical:0 Character Statements: 0 Criminal Records...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800979

    Original file (ND0800979.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997.B. There was no evidence in the Applicant’s record which provided supporting documentation to the claims the command failed to act upon his...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600117

    Original file (ND0600117.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    030424: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct- drug abuse and recommended for retention.030706: Commanding Officer, USS VINCENNES (CG-49) recommendation for retention from the Administrative Separation Board by reason of misconduct drug abuse, illegal or wrongful use. 030827: Commander, Navy Personnel Command to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700108

    Original file (ND0700108.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed the offense for which nonjudicial punishment was imposed, that separation from the Naval service was appropriate, and that a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted. Show Cause Decision: 20030806, CNPC notifies Applicant of requirement to show cause before Board of InquiryApplicant Election: 20031023, Applicant submits qualified resignation CNPC Recommendation: 20040105 ACCEPT...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601062

    Original file (ND0601062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:20050502Reason for Discharge Least Favorable Characterization: Record Supports Narrative Reason: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20050502Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit Statement(s) (date)GCMCA Review Administrative Board Date: NOT APPLICABLERecommendation of Commanding Officer (date): Discharge directed by (date):COMMANDER, SUBMARINE SQUADRON 15...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700923

    Original file (ND0700923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issues 3 & 4: ().A Sailor may be separated for a commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. 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 the award of one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 134 (Wrongfully commit an indecent act).A violation of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801072

    Original file (MD0801072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CA, per the requirements set out in paragraph 4003 of MCO P5800.16A (Marine Corps Manual for Legal Administration) forwarded the report of NJP to CMC (JAM), with the recommendation the applicant's letter of resignation be accepted and the Applicant be discharged with a “ General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901698

    Original file (ND0901698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000403

    Original file (ND1000403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB found no issue of impropriety; as such, an upgrade in characterization of service or change to the narrative reason for separation based on propriety would be inappropriate. ” 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...