Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900443
Original file (ND0900443.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20081212
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)      19861120 - 19861124     Active:            19861125 - 19921122
                           USN      19921123 - 19960829

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19960830     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19980904      Highest Rank/Rate: BM2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 05 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.57

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      CGR KLM NUC

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 19980304 :       Art icle 86 (UA and failing to go to appointed place of duty) , 2 specifications
         Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19980414 :       For unauthorized absence.
- 19980513 :       For financial irresponsibility and dishonorable failure to pay just debts as evidenced by letters of indebtedness from creditors.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 861125 UNTIL 960829”
         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-140 ”
         “870622; 880629-880630; 880716-880804; 880817-880907; 880908-880911 ”

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 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 21 August 2002,
Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

 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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 11 years and 9 months of service.
Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0312             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .
Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to “H onorable ” and contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 11 years and 9 months of service without any other adverse action. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason or characterization of discharge if such a change is warranted. An H onorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A G eneral ( Under Honorable C onditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.

The Applicant’s service was marred by two retention warnings and one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (Absence without leave) . Additionally, the commanding officer’s letter of 22 September 1998, indicates the Applicant’ s performance declined seriously during his time on board and he was continuously counseled for his financial irresponsibility and dishonorable failure to pay his just debt. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service . Based on the Applicant’s pattern of misconduct, length of service and lack of extenuating circumstances the Board determined an upgrade is not warranted. Therefore, relief is denied.

The following is provided for the Applicant’s edification. 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. Docum entation 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; attendance or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of alcohol non-dependency and 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.

The evidence of record reflects the Applicant did not pr ovide any documentation of post- service conduct for the Board’s consideration. 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 charact erization of service received, General Under Honorable Conditions, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service , pattern of misconduct , and lack of post service documentation.
After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, and Discharge Process, 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801398

    Original file (ND0801398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the discharge was proper but not equitable. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801293

    Original file (ND0801293.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002275

    Original file (ND1002275.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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801888

    Original file (ND0801888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.Based on a review of the record, statement and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board voted the Applicant’s post-service conduct was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000579

    Original file (ND1000579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported the basis for discharge and that separation from the Naval Service was warranted; as such, he directed that the basis for separation on the DD Form 214 be Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct. The Separation Authority further directed that the Applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that he receive an RE-4 reenlistment code (not recommended for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801611

    Original file (ND0801611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20021218 - 20030701Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030702Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20050727Length of Service: Years Months26 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 48Highest Rank/Rate:ANEvaluationMarks:Performance:2.0(1) Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 1.67Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):SSDR NDSM GWOTEMPeriod...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801805

    Original file (ND0801805.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801313

    Original file (ND0801313.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT).Discussion :The Applicant admits the punishment he received was just, but contends the RE-Code was “ a little harsh ” . 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 Dissenting opinion: The Applicant was administratively discharged based on misconduct due to a pattern of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900656

    Original file (ND0900656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board reviewed the evidence of record and the aforementioned misconduct and determined there is sufficient evidence to support discharge due to a pattern of misconduct and the fact that he had completed 90 percent of his enlistment does not preclude the separation authority from involuntarily separating him. However, the Applicant provides no documented information he informed his chain of command of the deaths of his family members and did not receive the assistance, support or leave...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100201

    Original file (ND1100201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends she was told that she would receive an Honorable discharge six months after her separation.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no...