Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900551
Original file (ND0900551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090112
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20020924 - 20030223     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Enlistment: 20030224     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20051031      Highest Rank/Rate: CSSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.77

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NMCAM NDSM CGSOSR

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20051007 : Art icle 95 ( Resistance, fight, breach of arrest, and escape )
Article 107 (False official statement)
 Article 132 (Frauds against the United States)
 Awarded : NFRI Susp ended : [Extracted from Evaluation Report & Counseling Record dtd
20051019]

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20050223 :       For uniform regulations Chapter 7 , Article 7101.6 and NAVADMIN 021/03

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 95 ( Resisting apprehension ); Article 107 ( False official statement ) a n d Article 132 ( Frauds against the U.S. government ) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Educational benefits and reenlistment
2. Isolated incident for which he was falsely accused.

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 MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE) .
Discussion

 : The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to support his family, obta in educational benefits and reenlist. The Applicant also contends he was told since he completed 2.5 years of service, he could return to school. The Applicant has not provided any written documentation indicating he was guaranteed educational benefits after his premature separation from the Navy. Furthermore, these are either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning and s, for additional information r egarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends h is discharge should be upgrad e d to honorable because he was falsely accused and had only been to NJP once . 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. Due to the absence of a complete discharge package, the Board presumed regularity of governmental affairs. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant's discharge, will change the reason for discharge and/or characterization of discharge if such a change is warranted . The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning and one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 95 ( Resisting apprehension ) , Article 107 ( False official statement ) and Article 132 ( Frauds against the United States ) .

In response to the Applicant’s contention he had only been to NJP once, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Furthermore, t here is no evidence in the record, nor provided by the Applicant to support the contention he was falsely accused . The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case. However, even if the Applicant could show misrepresentations, such misrepresentations would neither amount to a justification nor a defense for the Applicant’s own misconduct. The Applicant has requested an upgrade to “Honorable” in his discharge characterizations. 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 ( U nder H onorable 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 conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his failure to meet the established standards of conduct expected from a U. S. Sailor and the negative aspects of his military service outweigh the positive aspects. The Board 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, 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500598

    Original file (ND0500598.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700527

    Original file (ND0700527.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues: 1. 134 (failure to pay just debts, 7 specifications) NSF checks and unpaid debts totaling $2227.28 for rent, uniforms and cash at NEX.Awarded - FOP ($630.00 for 2months) conditionally suspended for 6 months based on payments of just debts; RIR (E-4); Restr (30days); Extra duties (30days).NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): NoneApplicant Testified: Applicant Available for Questions: Witnesses:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701247

    Original file (ND0701247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801882

    Original file (ND0801882.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501530

    Original file (MD0501530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. 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, Article91, insubordinate conduct, Article 107, false official statement, Article 108,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002297

    Original file (ND1002297.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. ” 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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600218

    Original file (ND0600218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051116. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) or uncharacterized. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900326

    Original file (MD0900326.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB is not authorized to consider the Applicant’s upgrade request based on this Issue.The Applicant was referred to a SPCM and the NDRB determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate. The record shows the command acted within regulations and the specifics of the Applicant’s plea agreement; an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301410

    Original file (ND1301410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends her discharge was too harsh.The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. Issue 4: (Decisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. ” 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700225

    Original file (ND0700225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1. Issue 2 ():In the Applicant’s letter to the Board he states that his discharge does not properly represent his character 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.