Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900532
Original file (ND0900532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090107
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)      19991120 - 20000509     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20000510     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20001212      Highest Rank/Rate: SA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 03 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 33
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20001031 :       Art icle 86 (UA)
         Article 92 (Derelict in performance of duties - sleeping on watch)
          Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20001106 :       Article 86 (UA)
         Awarded: Susp ended :

- 20001205 :      Article 86 (UA), 2 specifications
          Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
          Awarded: Suspended:

S CM : SPCM:

C C :
- (Pending Trial):              For suspected armed robbery in Norfolk Criminal Court.

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20001031 :       For unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty (sleeping on watch).

- 20061106 :      For unauthorized absence.





Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ JKA ”
         “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ”

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 .

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 86 (UA) , Article 92 (Derelict in performance of duties - sleeping on watch) and Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge was inequitable ; not allowed proper time to adjust to his duty station.

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0326             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

 Issue 1 : ( ) . The Applicant contents his discharge was inequitable because he was not allowed time to adjust to his new duty station and this was the cause for his misconduct. 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 retention warning and three NJP’s for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA), 4 specifications , Article 92 (Derelict in performances of duty, sleeping on watch) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation). The Applicant was also pending a civilian conviction trial for suspected armed robbery in the Norfolk Criminal Court. Violation of Article 92 is considered a serious violation 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. Additionally, a service member may be separated based on commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the offense warrants separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge. There is no requirement for adjudication by judicial or non-judicial proceedings, but the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but instead opted for an administrative discharge based on the established pattern of misconduct . The Applicant provided no documentation or further evidence in support of his request . It was noted the Applicant’s period of misconduct started in October 2000 and continued until December 2000: The NDRB rejects the contention the Applicant did not have adequate time to adjust to his new duty station. The NDRB 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 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 | ND0801311

    Original file (ND0801311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the nature of these violations the NDRB determined the awarded 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 responsive to the issues you raised, or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000778

    Original file (ND1000778.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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901442

    Original file (ND0901442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also determined an upgrade to Honorable is not warranted considering the seriousness and frequency of the UCMJ violations committed by the Applicant.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901481

    Original file (ND0901481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and medical records, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900874

    Original file (ND0900874.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, relief is denied.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100231

    Original file (ND1100231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801942

    Original file (MD0801942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801866

    Original file (ND0801866.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Record of service. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900736

    Original file (ND0900736.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board voted unanimously to upgrade the discharge characterization to General (Under Honorable Conditions), but not change the narrative reason for separation.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 the discharge was proper and equitable at the time of discharge. However, based on equitable grounds, the awarded characterization of service shall GENERAL (UNDER...

  • 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,...