Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901479
Original file (ND0901479.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090504
Characterization of Service Received: OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19920125 - 19920621     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 19920622     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19950726      Highest Rank/Rate: MSSN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 2 )      Behavior: 3.6 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.7

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (WITH BRONZE STAR)

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :
- 19930810:      Article 87 ( Missing movement through neglect 19930623 – 19930705 , 13 days)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19941207 :       Art icle 134 ( Indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years of age )
         Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

         - 19930810: For violation of the UCMJ as evidenced by your service record.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”
         “ GKQ ”

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996, Article 3630600, 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 s 87 and 134.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Claims he was w rongfully accused of committing an indecent act with a minor.

Decision

Date: 20 100115             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 discharge 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 one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Mili tary Justice (UCMJ): Article 87 ( Missing movement through neglect, 13 days) and Article 134 ( Indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years of age ). Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When processed for administrative separation, the Applicant elected to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. By unanimous vote, t he administrative board found that the Applicant had committed misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by both NJPs , and by the same vote recommended separation . B y a vote of 2 to 1 , the board recommended a characterization of discharge of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

Issue 1 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was w rongfully accused of committing an indecent act with a minor. Per a 15 June 1995 memorandum , the commanding officer (USS CARL VINSON) noted that he “considered the issues raised by c ounsel for r espondent [that his client was wrongfully accused] … and f oun d his arguments to be without merit …[t he Applicant] committed the alleged misconduct in this case. The board was procedurally sound, and the recommendation of the board was consistent with the evidence presented. Accordingly, I recommend that the recommendation of the board be upheld.” After reviewing the record of evidence, the NDRB determined the awarded characterization of discharge was warranted.

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, Automatic Upgrades, and Post-Service Conduct .




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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101799

    Original file (ND1101799.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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500327

    Original file (MD1500327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warnings, and for of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation; wrongfully consume alcohol under age 21), Article 129 (Burglary; unlawfully broke and entered barracks room of Cpl), and Article 134 (General article; 1 specification of indecent assault). 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801849

    Original file (MD0801849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant provided no documentation for the Board to consider during its review. ” 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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902267

    Original file (ND0902267.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant appeared before an Administrative Separation Board (ASB), who by a unanimous vote (3-0), determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported misconduct by reason of pattern of misconduct and commission of a serious offense. ” 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. If a former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000936

    Original file (ND1000936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300990

    Original file (ND1300990.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200741

    Original file (ND1200741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he was wrongfully accused of using Spice.2. Decision Date: 20130117Location: Washington D.C.Representation: OFFICE OF VETERAN SERVICES 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901521

    Original file (MD0901521.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 | 2013_Navy | ND1300093

    Original file (ND1300093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to have his discharge rank changed to E-6.2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101134

    Original file (MD1101134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.However, after a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the administrative separation process, the Board determined the Applicant’s primary basis for separation was incorrect.The Applicant’s primary basis for separation was Misconduct (Drug Abuse), for which he was charged at Squadron NJP on 17 January 2006 for an Article 92 violation for “ huffing ” compressed air.The Applicant’s correct primary basis for...