Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900817
Original file (ND0900817.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AZAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090224
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES/ASSIGNMENTS SATISFACTORILY
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20020516 - 20020805     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020806     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20041029      Highest Rank/Rate: AZAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 56
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.42

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling : NFIR

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

 “ UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ”

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 :


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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Inequitable discharge .
2. Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0604    Location: Washington D.C .      R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

Discussion

 : ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on a minor room re-inspection failure. 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 Board found no evidence in the Applicant’s record of service of any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings or any violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which resulted in NJP or court-martial. However, t he Board noted t he Applicant’s record of service was marred by poor performance. Per the Applicant’s detachment evaluation report, the command stat ed he “ continually fail [ ed ] to meet minimum performance standards by missing several room re-inspections and failed to maintain acceptable military bearing. ” and “his lack of initiative to excel in his rate and the Navy has become a roadblock to his future success in the military. ” For the Applicant’s edification, m embers may be sepa rated when they are unqualified for further Naval Service as demonstrated by one or more enlisted performance evaluation with 1.0 m ark s for any performance trait and violating a Page 13 counseling or warning . However, the Applicant’s record was very incomplete and the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to determine the propriety of his discharge . T he refore, presumption of regularity of governmental affairs was applied by the Board in this case in the absence of a complete discharge package , and all Evaluation Report and Counseling Records (E1-E6) and Page 13 warnings. For the Applicant’s edification, when a member is being discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance, the characterization should be Gener al (Under Honorable Conditions), unless an Entry Level Separation (ELS) or Honorable is warranted. The Applicant does not meet the requirements for an ELS separation and there is nothing in the Applicant’s record of service or documentation submitted by the Applicant to indicate his quality of service generally met the standard of acceptable conduct and p erformance for naval personnel. In addition, the Applicant’s Overall Trait Assessment (OTA) average (based on two evaluations) was 2.42 which warrants a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge (2.49 or below) . The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

Issue 2 : ( ) . 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; attending 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 c ase-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.

Besides the Applicant ’ s statement o n the DD Form 293, he provide d two character references from an employer and Pastor , and in-service documentation as evidence on his behalf. T he Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge characterization . T o warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post- service efforts need to be more encompassing. 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 , poor in-service performance, and limited post- service documentation .

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 22 September 2005, Article 1910-156, SEPARATION BY REASON OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

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 .

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 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (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 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 NDRB 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 NDRB B oard 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0901552

    Original file (ND0901552.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000037

    Original file (ND1000037.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, 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 naval service.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101090

    Original file (ND1101090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:NONE Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20051215Age at Enlistment:39Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070216Highest Rank/Rate:AZ3Length of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 05 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 88EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations :Periods of UA/CONF: NJP:SCM:SPCM:CC:Retention...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801140

    Original file (ND0801140.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service record is marred by one retention warning and an award of non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 107 (Making a false official statement). ” 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 authority to change a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301832

    Original file (ND1301832.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to reenlist.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401073

    Original file (ND1401073.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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 members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800573

    Original file (ND0800573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20040722 - 20040729 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040730Period of enlistment:4 YearsDate of Discharge:20051110Length of Service: Yrs Mths10 DysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 82Highest Rank/Rate:AZANEvaluation marks:Performance: 4.0 (3) Behavior:2.0 (3)OTA: 2.94 (3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,and NJP:20050907: Violation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001181

    Original file (ND1001181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102153

    Original file (ND1102153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for service benefits.2. 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.The Applicant remains eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801494

    Original file (ND0801494.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade of his discharge characterization to “Honorable” based on his post service conduct. 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, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...