Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901806
Original file (ND0901806.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AMAA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090617
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: (SEXUAL PERVERSION)
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20040831 - 20050628     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050629     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20071219      Highest Rank/Rate: AMAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 21 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.6 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.33
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     
Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20070927 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Indecent exposure)
         Article 134 (Assault-Indecent)
          Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warning Counseling :

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 s 92 and 134.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Wants his reentry (RE) code changed to reenlist in the Navy.
2. Change narrati ve reason for separation to “ Misconduct . ”

Decision

Date: 20 10 0225             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SEXUAL PERVERSION) .
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 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation on sexual harassment and personal relationships by making sexually offensive statements) and Article 134 ( 2 specifications: Indecent exposure, while in a command duty vehicle willfully and wrongfully expose in an indecent manner to public view his penis; and Assault – Indecent, commit an indecent assault upon a servicemember not his wife, by grabbing her arm and pulling it towards his penis, with intent to gratify his sexual desires). Based on his deviant sexual behavior, the Article 134 violations, processing for administrative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his right to request an administrative board , but elected to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement.

 Issue 1 : (Nondecisional) The Applicant w ants his RE code changed to reenlist in the Navy. T he NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, re entry or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, and is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.

Issue 2 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the counselor told him he did not have a sex ual perversion problem and the incident was a dumb and isolated decision. The Applicant further stated he has learned from his mistake and wants his narrative reason for separation changed to “Misconduct.” The commanding officer (CO) (Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 120) stated in his let ter dated 13 December 2007, the Applicant “admitted during NJP that he engaged in similar behavior in the past, but was not caught.” (regarding sexual assaults on servicemembers and exposing himself). The CO also stated the Applicant “denied all charges and lied consistently for more than a month before finally accepting some responsibility. He consistently made disparaging comments about the character of AN XXXX, the victim, and was disrespectful to the Command Master Chief. ” Based on the evidence of record, the NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct- commission of a serious offense , the awarded characterization of service was warranted, and the awarded narrative reason was correct per Navy regulations. 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 (SEXUAL PERVERSION) .

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100066

    Original file (MD1100066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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 | 2004_Navy | ND04-00692

    Original file (ND04-00692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The suspect agreed to speak to me about the allegations, the suspect stated that he was at the poolhall with the victim and followed her outside. 031031: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00642

    Original file (ND04-00642.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166; SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue in supplement to the Applicant’s petition. Specification 4: Wrongfully harassing and using abusive language toward prospect T_ F_ on or about Jul 94.Specification 5: Wrongfully engaging in physical contact with prospect T_ F_ by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400909

    Original file (ND1400909.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01391

    Original file (ND03-01391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01391 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030820. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500404

    Original file (ND0500404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper and inequitable because: • It is an injustice for him “to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of his discharge.” • His “marks were very good.” • “…this was an isolated offense.” • He “faced racial discrimination.” • His “punishment was too severe compared to todays standards” and “worse than most people got for the same offense.” • That his “command abused its authority,” “did not...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900762

    Original file (ND0900762.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 issues presented 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 | 2001_Navy | ND01-00675

    Original file (ND01-00675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00675 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010423, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. THE CO OF NAS JAX DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ADMIN SEPARATION BOARD DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DISCHARGE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 970609: Commanding officer recommended discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000085

    Original file (MD1000085.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the Naval Clemency and Parole Board reviewed the case and determined that no clemency was warranted. The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record entries, the transcript of the Special Court-Martial proceeding, and the overall discharge process. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-01142

    Original file (MD01-01142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. IT WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS TO CONVENE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD FOR THIS MATTER Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Brief from civilian counselNinety-six pages from applicant's service recordCopy of DD Form 149 with attachment (3 pages) PART II - SUMMARY OF...