Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901754
Original file (ND0901754.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090609
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)        19960628 - 19961020     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19961021     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19990429      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 36
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.33

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 19980306 :       Article (Provoking speeches)
         Article 128 (Assault consummated by a battery)
         Article 134 (Disorderly conduct)
          Awarded : Susp ended:

- 19990304 :       Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19980306 :       For provoking speeches, assault consummated by a battery, and disorderly conduct.

- 19980615 :       For failure to uphold uniform standards.



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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
29 March 2000, 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 91, 117 and 128 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Seeking Montgomery GI Bill.
2.       Incidents two years apart.
3.       Was experiencing hardship.
Decision

Date: 20 10 0331             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 two NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and two for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct ), Article 117 ( Provoking speeches ), Article 128 (Assault consummated by a battery) and Article 134 ( Disorderly conduct ) . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant his command administratively processed him 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 a General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMA) review .

: (Nondecisional) [ The Applicant is seeking an upgrade in the characterization of service for the purpose of obtaining the Montgomery GI Bill. 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.

 Issue 2 -3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on two different incidents that took place a year apart and he was experiencing hardship . The Applicant present ed in - service records for the Board’s consideration. Based on a review of the evidence of record the NDRB determined that there was sufficient evidence to separate the Applicant due to the commission of a serious offense and that an upgrade is not warranted taking into consideration the seriousness of the offenses committed, the Applicant’s length of service and overall record. Additionally, the Applicant provides no documented information he informed his chain of command of his personal problem s and did not receive the assistance, leave, or support he requested . Additionally, the Applicant makes no mention of, nor provides documented proof, if he attempted to use any one of the numerous family support programs sponsored by or for military service members. These programs and services, such as Family Advocacy, Navy – Marine Corps Relief Society, Red Cross, the Chaplain, or even Navy medical health personnel if needed, all provide services to members of the military, regardless of grade, in times of need.

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 his d ischarge. 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.
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 | ND1000770

    Original file (ND1000770.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After receiving punishment at the SPCM, his command administratively discharged him from the Navy. 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...

  • 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900893

    Original file (ND0900893.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On page 4, Item 8, in 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). ” 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 | 2013_Navy | ND1301593

    Original file (ND1301593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900039

    Original file (ND0900039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant's misconduct is clearly documented. Sailors in receipt of a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge characterization; 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801636

    Original file (ND0801636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :() The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because the separation was based on one isolated incident in 20 months of service and he had already warned his commanding officer and masterchief something might happen if he and another sailor were not separated. The Applicant has submitted documentation of post service conduct in support of his request for an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701048

    Original file (ND0701048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although retention was recommended following the Applicant nonjudicial punishment, the Commanding Officer comments from his discharge recommendation of 19950407 documented the Applicant stated he found it difficult to work with non-white service members. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100610

    Original file (ND1100610.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. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400323

    Original file (ND1400323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct.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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500594

    Original file (ND0500594.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I submitted my appeal on Jan. 06 2003, Document 2. My appeal was denied by the commander of Cruiser-Destroyer Group Twelve, Document 2, Page 4, in the USS Enterprise Commanding Officers endorsement (Document 2, Page 3) he stated that I did not have a reason for submitting my appeal late (sentence 1,2, paragraph 3). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided documentation for the Board to consider.