Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901442
Original file (ND0901442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090430
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN [UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE]

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20010111 - 20010122     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010123     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030107      Highest Rank/Rate: HA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 62
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20020918 :       Art icle 86 (U nauthorized absence (U A ) - failure to go to appointed place of duty -emergency vehicle operator’s course )
         Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duties as a hospital corpsman )
          Article 134 (Indecent exposure of genitalia to public view and indecent language of a sexual nature ), 4 specifications
         Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning / Counseling s

- 20011203 :       For performance and personal behavior, UA 1 hour, sleeping on duty.

- 20011207 :       For performance and personal behavior, UA 35 minutes, sleeping on duty.

- 20011229 :       For performance and personal behavior, leaving assigned work area without permission.

- 20020103 :       For performance, not completing assigned tasks.

- 20020122 :       For personal behavior, going outside while wearing scrub attire
- 20020123 :       For dereliction of duty (sleeping while on watch)
- 20020808 :       For personal behavior. Awarded EMI UA.
- 20020814 :       For responsibilities for unregistered POV, no insurance or ACCA.
Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          Block 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank, should read: “ HR ”
         Block 4b, Pay Grade, should read: “ E1 ”
         “ GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) ”

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 /To Representat ion :            From /To Congress m ember :         

Oth er Documentation :   

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until
25 January 2004, 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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Wants to use his GI Bill .
2.        Post-service conduct.

Decision

Date : 20 10 0204             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

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 discharg e if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and non-judicial punishment (NJP) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Unauthorized absence – failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit emergency vehicle operation course) , Article 92 (Dereliction in the performance of duty - failed to meet the requirements of his position as a hospital corpsman) , and Article 134 ( 4 specifications - Indecent exposure/language, communicated certain indecent language of a sexual nature and exposed his genitalia in public view ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation due to unsatisfactory performance . When processed for a dministrative s eparation, the Applicant elected right s to consult with qualified counsel, submit a written statement, obtain copies of documents forwarded to the separation authority and request ed an a dministrative discharge b oard. However, the Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board since he had less than six years of service and the least favorable characterization of service was General (Under Honorable Conditions).

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant is requesting an upgrade to Honorable so that he can be eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill in order to make a better life for his family. 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.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that since his di s charge from the military he has matured, married, is raising two children and currently a student striving to succeed. The Applicant has provided no documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration. 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 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.

T he Board determined the Applicant’s statement regarding post-service conduct without documentation to support the same, was not sufficient to form a basis of relief. On page 4, Item 8, i n the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence “which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6.” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). Additionally, upon receipt of the Applicant’s DD Form 293 , the NDRB mails an acceptance letter that includes the Information Concerning Review Procedures , which discusses the submission of additional documents in paragraph 3, Submission of Evidence, and in the last section on page 4, Information Pertaining to a Review Based Upon Post-Service Conduct . However, even if the Applicant could have produced additional evidence to support a review based on his post-service conduct, the Applicant should be aware that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board also determined an upgrade to Honorable is not warranted considering the seriousness and frequency of the UCMJ violations committed by the Applicant .
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 for a period of fifteen years from the date of 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 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.
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.

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 | 2012_Navy | ND1200832

    Original file (ND1200832.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to reenlist.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 does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900950

    Original file (ND0900950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions,” and the narrative reason for the discharge; “Misconduct,” shall remain as issued considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved.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, theBoard found ADDENDUM: Information for...

  • 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500544

    Original file (ND1500544.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning, and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave; failure to be at appointed place of duty), Article 92 (Insubordinate conduct towards warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer; 2 specifications), Article 108 (Damaging government property; $500.00), Article 117 (Provoking speech or gestures; 2 specifications), Article (Failure to obey order or regulation; 8...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901011

    Original file (ND0901011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. The Board also determined that an upgrade to Honorable was not warranted based on a review of the Applicant’s statement on his DD Form 293, the record of evidence, and the seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct as outlined in the incident complaint report.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200157

    Original file (ND1200157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined relief based on this issue was not warranted. ” 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 enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801311

    Original file (ND0801311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the nature of these violations the NDRB determined the awarded characterization 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, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000757

    Original file (ND1000757.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 . ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801684

    Original file (MD0801684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19860407 - 19860707Active: 19860708 - 1990070419900705 - 1993100619931007 - 19961230 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19961231Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20000306Length of Service: YearsMonths7 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 37MOS: 3381(Food service) Highest Rank: Fitness Reports: Proficiency/Conduct Marks...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401672

    Original file (MD1401672.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, and after a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review, the Applicant was punitively discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. 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 remain BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall...