Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900783
Original file (ND0900783.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090220
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)        19980814 - 19990721     Active:   19990722 - 20030513 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20030514     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080922      Highest Rank/Rate: CTM2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 8 )      Behavior: 3.1 ( 8 )        OTA: 3.28

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      EAWS ESWS

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:

SCM:

SPCM:

Civilian arrest: 1

 - 20060728: Applicant arrested by Virginia Beach Police Department for two counts of Aggravated Sexual Battery victim under thirteen years, a felony.

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20070207: For deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct are identified as deficient: Unauthorized Absence on 21 Jun 07.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACITVE SERVICE FROM 19990722 TO 20030513 ”
        
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 : Virginia Beach & Commonwealth of Virginia expungement 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 .





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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Discharge was inequitable because it was base d on an unsubstantiated accusation.
2. Served proudly for 9 years and upheld the core values of the Navy.
3 . The State of Virginia expunged the Applicant’s record based on significant l ack of evidence.

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0702             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 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 does not reflect any miscond uct , but the Applicant was arrested by the Virg inia Beach Police Department on two counts of a ggravated s exual b attery of a victim under thirteen years old (his three year old daughter) , a felony. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . When processed for administrative s eparation , the Applicant elected to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an a dministrative discharge b oard (ADB) . T he A DB vote d 3 – 0 that a preponderance of the evidence supported misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, the evidence warranted separation, and that separation should be characterized as “OTH ” ( Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ) .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was base d on unsubstantiated accusation and his record of service was honorable . For the Applicant ’s edification , a service member may be separated, regardless of his rank or record of service, based on commission of a serious military or civilian offense when conviction for the offense would warrant separation and a punitive discharge. There is no requirement under Navy regulation for final adjudication /conviction of the offense by judicial or non-judicial proceedings for administrative separation due to the commission of a serious offense , but the offense (s) must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence —normally attained through a preferral of charges, grand jury indictment, etc . Prior to making its decision, t he ADB had considerable evidence with which to determine a preponderance of evidence did exist to include a civilian preferral of charges, a determination by the Family Advocacy Program, reports from medical providers and social workers, etc. The NDRB determined that, al though the Applicant was accurate in his contention that he was never convicted of the offense, his command and the ADB did determine that he committed the offenses in question based on a preponderance of evidence and , therefore, properly separated from the Navy.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that the State of Virginia expunged his record from the court system due to significant lack of evidence. A Virginia Cour t did issue an Order for Expunge ment on 16 January 2008 regarding the charges of a ggravated sexual battery on his daughter . However, b ased on an affidavit by the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney (C ity of Virginia Beach ) , the prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute this case through a “ nolle prosqui ” determination—that the Defendant was not believed to be innocent of the charges against him , but that successful prosecution of the case was unlikely due to the victim’s age . The NDRB noted in the correspondence that the nolle prosqui determination d id not preclude the Commonwealth of Virginia from prosecuting these same charges at a later date. Although the State of Virginia did issue an Order of Expungement of the Applicant’s arrest for the offense , it was not for significant lack of evidence or a determination of innocence . Based on the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s statement does not support his contention.

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 until fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, 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 vetera ns 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 d ischarge 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 n aval 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 certificate s (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 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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000550

    Original file (20140000550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's UOTHC discharge to an honorable or a general discharge and a change to his RE code to a "1" or "2." The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge. Neither the applicant nor counsel have provided sufficient evidence to show that the applicant's discharge should be upgraded.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03346

    Original file (BC-2005-03346.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provided an extensive written presentation attacking his wife’s credibility, pointing out the lack of scientific evidence supporting her allegations, and noting inconsistencies in her various statements. Parts of the applicant’s response to the Article 15 identifies times the Air Force was continuing to investigate. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600039

    Original file (ND0600039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: SN D_ (Applicant) did at fleet information warfare center on or about 11 Dec 00, with intent to deceive, make to his CPO an official statement during suspect’s rights acknowledgement statement state that he did not commit larceny which was totally false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false. The names, and votes of the members of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901944

    Original file (ND0901944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. It is of no consequence that the assault charge was subsequently dismissed by the civilian court since the command was not required to delay or postpone the administrative discharge processing pending the outcome of his civilian case when there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the discharge based on other misconduct committed by the Applicant.The Board determined that...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800223

    Original file (ND0800223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that rd found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800648

    Original file (ND0800648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Case deferred until 20061214. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500479

    Original file (ND1500479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Board Issue: (Decisional) (Equity) Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800907

    Original file (ND0800907.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500902

    Original file (ND0500902.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. G_ T. M_ Jr. (Applicant)” 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00572

    Original file (ND01-00572.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00572 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010327, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to "other". Criminal Branch: Having plead not guilty, and having moved for trial by jury and the Commonwealth having moved the Court to defer prosecution for a period of 1 year with the recommendation that if no other similar charges resulted in convictions during that term,...