Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900877
Original file (ND0900877.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABH3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090304
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (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)        19960830 - 19961126     Active:           19961127 - 20000323
                                             20000324 - 20050421
                                             20050422 - 20071010

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20071011     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20081010      Highest Rank/Rate: ABH2
Length of Current Enlistment : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.29

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle (3)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20080910 :       Art icle 8 9 ( Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer)
         Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer)
         Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 200080911 :      For disrespect to a commissioned officer and disrespect to a noncommissioned officer.
Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY RIFLE RIBBON (EXPERT), ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, COAST GUARD MERITORIOUS UNIT COMMENDATION, NAVY “E” RIBBON, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL (3), NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ACHIEVEMENT MEDAL, NAVY PISTOL (MARKSMAN) ”

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 :

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 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer).



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. The discharge is a disgrace to the 12 years of naval service and defense of the President of the United States, the White House , First Lady, United States Navy (USN), Pentagon, Secretary of Defense, etc.
 2. False information placed in his medical record.

Decision

Date: 20090625   Location: Washington D.C.        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE).
Discussion

 :. ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge has been a disgrace to h is 12 years of naval service. The Applicant further contends he has defended the President of the United States (hereinafter “President”), the White House, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, FBI, USN, and alleges that he was beat down in a training room and locked in a room for three days for defending the First Lady. 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 NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and/or the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.

The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning and one NJP for violations of the U niform Code of Military Justice: Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer) and Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer). Furthermore, per Naval Air Station Whiting Field letter 1910 Ser N00J (undated), the Commanding Officer indicated the following: 1) the Applicant’s issues began in March 2008 when he became belligerent toward his leading petty officer after a discussion about the Applicant’s estranged wife —who cl aimed he threatened to kill her and cut her up; 2) the Applicant accepted a psychiatric screening and , after several visits the psychiatrist , it was determined that he had delusional tendencies—but was not mentally ill or a harm to himself or others; 3) in July 2008, the command received CIA notification and request for evaluation of the Applicant after he sent mo re than 30 emails to the CIA’s public website in a two-month period ; 4) during a meeting with the Applicant , it was determined that he had falsely claimed connections with a nati onal intelligence agency and had falsely represent ed himself to outside federal agencies as a command representative of the Naval Air Station Whiting Field ; 5) the Applicant was order ed to cease th es e action s and cautioned that sending gifts to the President or President’s family members , which he had previously done, could be a violation of the Joint Ethics Regulations . 6) th at the Applicant informed the unit’s operations officer of his intent to mail a tea set to the President, in violation of the previously mentioned order , became di srespectful when confronted, and was sent to NJP; 7) the Applicant’s disrespect and defiance to authority figures grew, and he mailed his restricted access badge to the Presid ent and burned a second badge; 8) as a result of the Applicant’s continued misconduct , he was administratively processed for separation due to misconduct - commission of serious offenses. The Applicant was notified of the administrative separation processing as outlined in the Notification Board Procedure Notice of 01 October 2008 and waived all of his rights except the right to consult with qualified counsel and obtain copies of all documents forwarded to the separation authority. The Applicant was subsequently discharged with a char acterization of General (U nder Honorable C onditions) .

There is no evidence in the record or provided by the Applicant to support any of his contentions regarding his direct support or defense of the previously mentioned senior government officials, their famil ies or government property , or that he was mistreated or illegally confined by personnel within the chain of command or other s . The NDRB determined the preponderance of the evidence demonstrating the Applicant’s disrespectful behavior, lack of respect and open defiance of authority, and blatant disregard for orders not to sent gifts to the President or his family supports the basis for discharge due to commission of serious offenses , and that the Applicant’s separation from th e Naval service was appropriate.
: ( ) . The Applicant further contends the Naval Air Station Whiting Field Medical personnel place d false information regarding terrorist organizations in his medical record. The medical records in question were not provided to the Board by the Applicant or contained in his official record . Even if the medical records were available, the Board does not have the authority to correct medical records or remove information. I f the Applicant is in disagreement with language in his medical record he may seek relief from the originator of the document or seek redress from the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) . The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning Additional Reviews for the BCNR’s address .
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) and the narrative reas on for separation shall remain Misconduct (Serious Offense).

 The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Automatic Upgrades .


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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00048

    Original file (ND00-00048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00048 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991013, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Record Check from Department of Veterans Affairs Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN None Inactive:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501360

    Original file (ND0501360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 910923: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by his enlisted service record, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions. Commanding...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600162

    Original file (ND0600162.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petty Officer M_(Applicant) was separated locally for personality disorder, pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. The Applicant implies that his discharge was improper due to contradicting statements from his command and because he was not “given the right to take matters further up Chain of Command.” In the Applicant’s remarks from DD Form 293, the Applicant implies that he was denied his “rights to see the admiral.” The Applicant also states that he was not given...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01163

    Original file (ND01-01163.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-01163 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Copy of Conservatorship of applicant dated April 9, 2001Six pages from applicant's service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00839

    Original file (ND00-00839.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In response to the applicant’s issue, the Board found that the applicant has a history of substance abuse, alcohol abuse and a problem with authority. Even though the applicant’s performance evaluation averages were good, the applicant did commit a serious offense by violating UCMJ Article 91 for disrespect toward a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01112

    Original file (ND01-01112.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 020328. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1 states: “At the time of offenses committed I had been drinking and the offenses would not have been committed had I not been drinking.” The applicant was guilty at NJP on two separate occasions for violation of the UCMJ. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600584

    Original file (ND0600584.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    *Third set of Performance and Behavior marks extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant (page 1 only) Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 1910-140 (formerly 3630600). Pt stated that he has had suicidal thoughts since a kid but denied any plans or attempts. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002123

    Original file (ND1002123.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant desires to become eligible for the GI Bill. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801802

    Original file (ND0801802.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.As stated above, the Applicant provided no post service documentation. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800595

    Original file (ND0800595.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)NONEActive: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030417Period of enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070425Length of Service: Active: Yrs Mths21 Dys Inactive: Yrs Mths17Education Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 63Highest Rank/Rate:AO3Evaluation marks:Performance: NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):N&MCPeriods...