Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901257
Original file (ND0901257.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090417
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)        19990723 - 200 00531     Active:  
         USNR (DEP)        20010713 - 20011001

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20011002     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040603      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 02 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 53
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.67

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20020307 :       Art icle 92 (Failure to obey written o rder or regulation)
         Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

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. Educational o pportunities .
2. Record of service (n o specific Issues) .

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0521             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 : 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 , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant did not identify any other Issues upon which the Board can consider to recharacterize his discharge. However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. 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 is marred by one NJP for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation). Since the Board could not fully evaluate the Applicant’s conduct and separation, t he Board relied on a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any documented evidence for the Board’s consideration, to support the contention the Applicant deserves an upgrade in characterization. Based on his DD Form 214, t he Applicant was separated for fail ing to disclose important information upon enlistment. Integrity and trust is th e cornerstone which a service member builds his career upon. Without it, good order and discipline cannot be maintained and cohesion of the unit will be lost. T o maintain proper order and discipline , the command determined that this lack of integrity warranted separation from the Navy. Violation of UCMJ Article 83 (Fraudulent enlistment) is considered a serious offense 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. The command did not refer the Applicant for a court- martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge. The Board determined the awarded characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

For the Applicant’s edification, t he 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 re viewed 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.

Besides the Applicant ’ s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and evidence on his behalf. 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, Gener al (Under Honorable Conditions) , was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 2 May 2005, Article 1910-134, Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Fraudulent Entry into t he Naval Service.
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 s of the UCMJ, Article 83 (Fraudulent enlistment) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation).

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 | ND0900825

    Original file (ND0900825.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of Service (No specific issues). The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and without any post-service documentation provided 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000538

    Original file (ND1000538.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20051013 - 20060619Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060620Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20060922Highest Rank/Rate: SALength of Service: Years Months03 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 57EvaluationMarks:Performance:NONE Behavior:NONEOTA: NONEAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000810

    Original file (ND1000810.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in his discharge characterization and change in narrative reason for separation in order to reenlist in the United States Army. Rather, the NDRB examines the propriety and the equity of an Applicant’s discharge and is authorized to change the characterization of that service or the reason for discharge if factors of equity or...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801271

    Original file (ND0801271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the Board determined an upgrade to “Honorable” characterization of service is appropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201450

    Original file (ND1201450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801618

    Original file (ND0801618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As described above, the Applicant deliberately misrepresented his past abuse of Oxycontin in statements to his recruiter.The Board determined a change 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801653

    Original file (MD0801653.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002288

    Original file (ND1002288.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From/To Representation: From/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900621

    Original file (ND0900621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101720

    Original file (ND1101720.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...