Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901812
Original file (ND0901812.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ITSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090616
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)        20050527 - 20051203     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20051204     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080408      Highest Rank/Rate: ITSA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 75
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

NJP : S CM :

SPCM:

- 20070711 :       Article 81 (Conspire to steal a government computer)
         Art icle (UA 20070516-20070518, 3 days )
         Article 121 (Larceny), 4 specifications
         Specification 1: Steal 2 Dell Latitude 610 laptop computers on 20061113
         Specification 2: Steal 2 Dell Latitude 610 laptop computers on 20061120
         Specification 3: Wrongful appropriate a 2003 Mitsubishi Galant on 20070210
         Specification 4: Steal 2 Virginia License plates on 20070210
         Article 112a (Wrongfully use marijuana , 65 ng/ml )
          Sentence : CONF 10 months ( Pre-trial: 20070518-20070711, 54 days ; 20070711-20071130, 142 days ) BCD

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20051205 :       For article 92, violate a lawful general regulation by wrongfully viewing pornographic Website on a Government computer.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 20070516-20070518 (3); 20070 518 -20071130 (1 95 ) ”
        
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 21, effective 19 December 2007 until Present, 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 his reentry (RE) code upgraded.
2. Learned from his mistakes and gained a lot of knowledge over the last several months.
Decision

Date: 20 10 0422             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 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 one NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning , and one special court-marital for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 81 ( Conspiracy, 1 specification: to steal a government computer), Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 1 specification: 3 days ), Article 112a (Wrongful use of controlled substances, 1 specification: marijuana , 65 ng/ml ) (DoD cutoff limit for marijuana is 15 ng/ml) , and Article 121 (Lar ceny, 4 specifications: 1) steal two Dell laptop compute rs valued at $2000 on 13 November 2006 ; 2) steal two Dell laptop computers valued at $2000 on 20 November 2006 ; 3) wrongfully appropriate a 2003 Mitsubishi Galant valued greater than $500 on 10 February 2007; and 4) steal two Virginia license plates valued at less than $500 on 10 February 2007 ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command convened a special court-martial. The Applicant pled and was found guilty of all charges except that of stealing the Mitsubishi Galant, which he pled and was found guilty of the lesser offense of wrongful appropriation. The Applicant was reduced in rank to E-1, sentenced to ten months of confinement and given a Bad Conduct discharge.

Issue 1: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants his RE code upgraded. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, and is not authorized to change a reentry (RE) code.

Issue 2 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he has l earned from his mistakes and gained a lot of knowledge from his friends and family over the last several months. The NDRB considers post-service conduct to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant's character or an aberration. Besides the Applicant’s statement on the DD Form 293, he failed to provide any additional documentation and 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 or relate directly to your issues in Item 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 . The Applicant should provide documentation which could include but not limited to: letters of personal references and verifiable employment record /letter of recommendation from his employers; evidence of a drug free life style (completion of rehab/proof he attended Narcotics Anonymous or AA meetings); and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities , evidence of financial stability (home ownership/home rental history, credit card payments); college transcripts; documentation of community /church service and if married, a marriage certificate. The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.

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 BAD CONDUCT 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

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001693

    Original file (AR20090001693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801491

    Original file (MD0801491.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 86, 92, 107, 111, and 112A. 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 conduct mitigates the reason for the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016138

    Original file (AR20080016138.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for knowingly possessing a Toshiba hard drive, on a Dell laptop computer, which contained photographic images and video files of child pornography, with an Under Other Than Honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902252

    Original file (ND0902252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20060616 - 20060727Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060728Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20081024Highest Rank/Rate:MMFNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)27 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 45EvaluationMarks:Performance:4.0(1)Behavior:3.0(1)OTA: 3.43Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601213

    Original file (MD0601213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning, one nonjudicial punishment for Article 121, and a guilty finding and sentence at a Special Court-Martial for Article 92. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201630

    Original file (ND1201630.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003248

    Original file (20080003248.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080003248 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. His records also show that on 29 January 2004, he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for meritorious service while serving in the pay grade of E-4, as a supply clerk in Iraq during the period of 19 March...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00181

    Original file (FD2006-00181.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. j United States Air Force, 743 EAS, was arraigned at CHARGE I: Article 81 + Plea; G. Finding: G. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Specification: Did, at A1 Udeid Air Base, Qatar, between on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02914

    Original file (BC-2007-02914.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 06, she submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her BCD be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500157

    Original file (ND1500157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant’s record of service contained record of two nonjudicial punishments and the Applicant detailed four nonjudicial punishments in his application to this board. ” 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...