Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901393
Original file (ND0901393.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090427
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)        19930821 - 19940725     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19940726     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970718      Highest Rank/Rate: HN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 58
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 4 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.16

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 19960208 :       Art icle 92 ( Failed to obey an order or regulation , w rongfully consume alcohol while under the age 21)
         Article 128 (Assault)
         Awarded : 30 DAYS Susp ended :

- 19961121 :       Article 9 2 ( Dereliction of duty )
         Article 107 (False official statement)
         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. Wants to change reentry (RE) code and reenlist.
2. Doesn’t understand why he was discharged from military service.

Decision

Date : 20 0 9 0810    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 discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation : wrongfully consume alcohol while under the age of 21 ; and Dereliction of duty : did not administer the medicat ions as required to one patient and issued medications early to another patient ), Article 107 (False official statement with intent to deceive : lied to the nursing supervisor in an attempt to conceal his liability ), and Article 128 (Assault consummated by battery : tried to pick up a fellow Sailor (without consent) by her neck ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified for Administrative Separation Processing, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with qualified counsel and request an Administrative Board, but elected to submit a written statement.

: (Nondecisio nal) T he 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 this issue.

Issue 2 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he doesn’t understand why he was discharged from the Navy and that the disc harge was not part of his Captain’s m ast. For the i nformation of the Applicant, he was administratively separated by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offenses as evidenced by violations of the UCMJ as noted above. These are considered serious offenses that could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a special or general court-martial. The command did not refer the Applicant for a court-martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge. In the Applicant’s statement regarding his separation, he states, “I know that over the past three years I have made many errors. LN1 has explained this to me and I am fully aware of the Navy’s stand. I will agree that with my two masts that I do not deserve an honorable separation.” “…and even though this discharge I believe should be a General,…” “LN1 has spent many hours explaining the Navy’s view, and I appreciate his time and effort.” Based on the Applicant’s statement and the offenses he committed , in which the Applicant endangered other people’s lives, the Board determined the Applicant understood why he was being separated, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.

F or the information of the Applicant, i n May 1997 , he was seen b y mental health officials and was diagnose d with a personality disorder, n ot otherwise specified (NOS), with borderline and antisocial traits to include adjustment disorder and depressed mood. The Mental Health Staff r ecommended expeditious administrative separat ion from the Navy. Per the Commanding Officer, USS SACRAMENTO (AOE 1) letter 1910 of 9 June 1997, t he Applicant was notified of the basis for separation was by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (COSO) and by reason of convenience of the government on the b asis of a personality disorder; the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 9 June 1997. Since separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted for any other reason (e. g., member meets minimum criteria for misconduct processing), the Applicant’s reason for s eparation was determined to be m isconduct due to COSO and was subsequently discharged with an Under Other than Honorable Condition characterization of 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 .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of 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 .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 12 December 1997, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 92 (Failure to obey order, regulation; Dereliction in the performance of duties ) , Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 128 (Assault consummated by battery ).




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 veterans 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 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 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 naval 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 certificates (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 at 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800657

    Original file (ND0800657.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision Date: 20080530Location: Washington D.C Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL.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 Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901248

    Original file (ND0901248.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant, through his counsel, requested a change on the Applicant’s DD Form 214, block 26 (separation code) and block 28 (narrative reason for separation) to support separation due to completion of his active obligated service. The Board determined this issue is without merit and 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,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801173

    Original file (ND0801173.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the foregoing evidence and the seriousness of the offenses committed by the Applicant, especially the assault on his wife and child, the Board determined 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001083

    Original file (ND1001083.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900309

    Original file (ND0900309.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.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293 and personal letter, no documentation was provided for review. Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900168

    Original file (MD0900168.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 based on the limited post service documentation provided, an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801906

    Original file (MD0801906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the numerous violations the Applicant committed and an upgrade based on back pain as a mitigating factor would be inappropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801337

    Original file (ND0801337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violation involved.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101342

    Original file (ND1101342.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 educational and employment opportunities.2. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101764

    Original file (ND1101764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : (Nondecisional)The Applicant requests his DD Form 214 be changed to reflect a Navy and Marine CorpsCommendation Medal he believes he was awarded post-service from the Navy.In reviewing discharges, the NDRB may identify administrative errors on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 that fall within the scope of the NDRB’s responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of a discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of...