Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901517
Original file (ND0901517.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090507
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)        20050816 - 20050914     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20050915     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080722      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 08 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.78

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20070116 :       Art icle 86 (U nauthorized absence )
         Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20071211 :       Article 86 ( U nauthorized absence from appointed place of duty ) , 3 specifications
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct towards a Second Class Petty Officer), 3 specifications
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20080708 :      Article 86 ( U nauthorized absence, failure to go to appointed place of duty ) , 9 specifications
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer or Petty Officer), 9 specifications
          Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :   SPCM:   CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20070116 :       For absence without leave , as evidenced by your CO’s NJP of 16 Jan 07.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, 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 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 s of the UCMJ, Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer) , and Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures) .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       “My discharge was improper, because I feel that I was punished for voicing my opinion to a senior officer. ”
2.       Post-service warrants consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 10 0128         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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Unauthorized absence) 13 specifications, Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward a Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer or Petty Officer ) 12 specifications , and Article 117 ( Provoking speeches or gestures ). Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharg e was improper because he felt that he was punished for voicing his opinion to a senior officer . For the Applicant ’s edification , service member s may be separated, regardless of their rank or record of service, for the commission of a serious offense when the offense would warrant a punitive discharge. Based upon available records, nothing indicates the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of disciplin e in the United States Navy. The NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action and determined the awarded character of service was warranted .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service warrants conside ration because he has held a job and has stay ed out of trouble since his discharge. Besides the Applicant’s statement, a reference letter and his DD Form 293, he failed to provide any documentation to support his contention or evidence on his behalf to support a post-service conduct review. The Applicant’s statements alone, without sufficient documentary evidence, are not enough to form a basis of relief. On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence "which substantiate s or relate s directly to your issues in It em 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 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 must have a full understanding that post-service conduct alone does not guarantee an upgrade .

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 Disable d American 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 their 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1201678

    Original file (ND1201678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for the G.I. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00416

    Original file (ND04-00416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. “I feel that I completed my service fulfilled my four year commitment, and believe that I am entitled to all of my benefits.” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:DD Form 214 (3 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400472

    Original file (ND1400472.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. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901384

    Original file (ND0901384.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Based on the three NJPs and seriousness of the violations, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service was warranted.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400087

    Original file (ND1400087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Navy.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000476

    Original file (ND1000476.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 | 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 | 2014_Navy | ND1401086

    Original file (ND1401086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000172

    Original file (ND1000172.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Nondecisional issues:(1) Applicant seeks relief in the form of an upgrade in discharge characterization of service in order to obtain Montgomery G.I. This issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief; there is no requirement or law that grants the NDRB the authority to re-characterize discharges based solely on the issue of obtaining...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500063

    Original file (ND1500063.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...