Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901537
Original file (ND0901537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090513
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:         NONE              Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 19890428     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20000118      Highest Rank/Rate: SA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 27
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.2 ( 3 )      Behavior: 3.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.35

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (Bronze Star) LoC

Periods of UA : 19930427 – 19930430, 3 days
Time lost per DD 214: 19930718 – 20000118, 2376 days

NJP :
- 19910926 :      Article (UA from appointe d place of duty)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19911010 :      Article (UA from appointe d place of duty)
         Awarded: ORAL REPRIMAND Suspended:
        
SPCM:

- 19930506 :      Article (False official statement)
         Article 120 (Carnal knowledge with a minor ), 3 specifications
          Sentence: 3 MONTHS (19930502 – 19930717, 77 days) BCD

C C :     SCM:    Retention Warning Counseling:


Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 5815-010 [COURT-MARTIAL] ”
         “ JJD ”
          “93APR27 – 93APR30 (3), 93MAY02 – 93JUL11 (77), 93JUL18 – 00JAN18 (2376) ”
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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 22, effective 1 5 December 1998 to 21 August 2002, Article 5815-010, Executing a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .
C . 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 get an upgrade for health benefits from the Veterans Affairs (VA) .
2.       Record of service warrants consideration .
3. Post-service warrants consideration.

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

 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant's clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. The Applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Unauthorized absence, from appointed place of duty ), 2 specifications ; and for of the UCMJ: Article 107 ( False official statement , “This is my last day of work because I am checking out,” or words to that effect, which was totally false ) and Article 120 (Carnal knowledge with a minor), 3 specifications . After being sentenced to a BCD at his SPCM, the Applicant finished his confinement in the brig, began appellate leave, and was discharged in absentia .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant is requesting to get his discharge upgraded in order to attain health benefits from the VA. 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant stated he has served in Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf conflict. The NDRB recognizes that serving in the Navy is very challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most Sailo rs serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges. In fairness to those Sailor s, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that no Sailor receive s a higher or lower discharge characterization than is due. In addition, the NDRB determined that the reason for discharge, convicted by special court-martial, was most appropriate. Relief denied .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he has been a productive citizen and currently attends college for computer technology. Besides the Applicant ’ s statement on the DD Form 293, he provided service-related documents, unofficial college transcripts, a reference letter from his pastor and a letter from Hope Station for successfully completing an employment improvement program. Although the NDRB appreciated the Applicant’s post-service conduct, the board members determined the Applicant ’s post service accomplishments were not suff icient to form a basis of relief , considering his offenses . After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and pos t- service accomplishments, the NDRB determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenses he committed. Relief denied.

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 Disabled 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001774

    Original file (ND1001774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service record documents a period of service of approximately 1 year and 9 months in which time he was subject to a trial by Special Court-Martial. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600707

    Original file (ND0600707.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred nonjudicial punishment proceedings on 20011114 and a special court-martial conviction on 20030812 for violations of UCMJ Article 92 Failure to obey order or regulation (2 specifications); Article 120 Carnal knowledge; and Article 134 Indecent act (2 specifications). After a thorough review of the Applicant’s records and issues submitted, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500392

    Original file (ND1500392.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Article (General article) 2 specifications: Specification 1: On or about 20000118 was drunk and disorderly. 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 PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100708

    Original file (ND1100708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case during the second Special Court-Martial, the Judgefound the Applicant guilty of the charge as specified and adjudged confinement for a period of 6 months and to be discharged from the Naval Service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency based on matters regarding the equity of a discharge when considering a change to a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001336

    Original file (ND1001336.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401627

    Original file (ND1401627.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201024

    Original file (ND1201024.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700537

    Original file (ND0700537.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: HARDSHIPApplicant’s Issues:1.Narrative Reason change due to wife’s illness2. After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, post service, and the standards of discipline, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700320

    Original file (ND0700320.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)NONEActive: 19980305–Unable to determine? Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700972

    Original file (ND0700972.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues:1. The Applicant’s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.