Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901581
Original file (ND0901581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AC3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090514
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)        20010918 - 20010927     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010928     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060327      Highest Rank/Rate: AC3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 55
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2 .43

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20020328 :       Article (Assault - 3 specifications )
         Articl e 134 (Communicating a threat - 2 specifications )
         Article 134 (Unlawful entry)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20030714 :       Article 128 (Assault and battery)
         Awarded : Susp ended:


S CM : SPCM: C C :


Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20020329 :       For violation of UCMJ Article 128 (x3): Assault; viol ation of UCMJ Article 134 (x2): C ommunicating a threat; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Wrongful entry.


Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

 “ ”

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 of the UCMJ, Article 128 (x3): Assault; violation of UCMJ Article 134 (x2): Communicating a threat; violation of UCMJ Article 134: Wrongful entry.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. The Applicant seeks educational benefits.     
2. The Applicant believes his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and “over the top. ”       
3. The Applicant believes his post service efforts are worthy of consideration.

Decision
Date : 20 10 0218    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. T he Board complete d a thorough review of the circumstances which led to the Applicant’s disch arge, as well as the discharge process , to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. 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 128 (Assault – 3 specifications), Article 128 (Assault and battery), Article 134 (Communicating a threat – 2 specifications) and Article 134 (Unlawful entry). Additionally, the Applicant was stopped on 13 February 2006 at the entrance to a military base and was charged with Article 134 (False or unauthorized pass offenses: multiple specifications) and other traffic offenses. Based on a loss of trust and confidence , command er administratively processed for separation, but did not pursue adjudication of the traffic offenses . The NDRB did not have access to the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, but the commanding officer did state that the Applicant did not submit a written statement for his consideration.

: (Nondecisional) The Applic ant seeks educational benefits. 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 his discharge was inequitable because it was too harsh and “over the top. ” The Applicant believes his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service which was good apart from a period of misconduct. The NDRB opined that, based on his record, the Applicant was involved in several incidents of misconduct within a 3-4 year period. His command lost confidence in the Applicant’s ability to uphold the Navy core values. The NDRB opined that the command’s decision to separate the Applicant with a General discharge was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post - service endeavors are worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant provided two character references from his employer and a youth football organization with which he volunteers hi s time, he provided no other documentation to support his contention . To warrant upgrade consideration, the Applicant’s post service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant is referred to the addendum, Post-Service Conduct for further information regarding this issue. The NDRB determined the characterization of service received was warranted. 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 MISCONDUCT ( SERIOUS OFFENSE ) . 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 , Employment/Educational Opportunities 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801696

    Original file (ND0801696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20020923 - 20030903Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030904Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20061206Length of Service: Years Months03 DaysEducation Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT:NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:AC3EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle Pistol Periods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100619

    Original file (ND1100619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends the Navy never gave him an opportunity to go to drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801750

    Original file (ND0801750.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700836

    Original file (ND0700836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change: Applicant’s Issues:1.Reenlist in California Army National Guard2.Inequitable because based on one incident in 32 months of service. 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 Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700942

    Original file (ND0700942.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20080103Location:Washington D.C Representation: Discussion Issues 1 -2: 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 Applicant’s service was marred by one discharge warning and two non-judicial punishments for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 (Failure to obey a direct order), Article 107 (False Official Statement), Article...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900955

    Original file (ND0900955.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a majority vote of 5-0, the Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, ” and the narrative reason for the discharge; “Commission of a Serious Offense,” 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, the Board found...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801716

    Original file (ND0801716.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Discharge unjust and unfair Decision Date: 20081120Location: Washington D.C. 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 discharge characterization considering the UCMJ violations involved. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700369

    Original file (ND0700369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - FOP ($amount) for (months); RIR (paygrade); Restr for (# days); Extra duties (# days).20030319: Retention Warning for provoking speeches or gestures, assault, sub-standard performance as stated on NAVPERS 1610/2 dated 20011207-20020715, lack of responsibility, unsatisfactory demeanor/conduct, failure to live up to the Navy Core Values, unwillingness and/or inability to follow lawful orders and/or regulations, unwillingness and/or inability to work with others, failure to understand...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801671

    Original file (ND0801671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; 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 company’s or other financial institutions;...