Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901840
Original file (ND0901840.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090615
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)        19990602 - 19990707     Active:   19990708 – 200 30622 HON
                                    USN 20030623 – 20060619 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060620     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070626      Highest Rank/Rate: BM2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 06 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.83

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol (2) (2) NEM (3) ESWS

Periods of UA /C ONF : NJP: SPCM:     CC: Retention Warning Counseling :

S CM :
-2007 [Extracted from the Commanding Officer’s letter dated 24 May 2010]

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
         
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 990708 UNTIL 060619 ”

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 :   


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Wants to reenlist in the Navy .
2.       R ecord of service .
3. There was no board to stand in front of a judge to speak or have character witnesses.
 4.       His wife was the person writing the bad checks.
 5 . Other Sailors with far worse cases where allow to continue their careers.

Decision

Date: 20 10 0506             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 discharg e 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 servic e included one summary court-martial (SCM) for
violati on of the Uniform Code of Militar y Justice (UCMJ): Article 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without funds , 1 specification: wrote 29 checks to the San Diego Navy Exchange (NEX) in a three- week period against a known closed account ). Initially, the charges were referred to a special court-martial on 27 February 2007. Per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Applicant and the Commanding Officer, Navy Recruiting District, San Diego, dated 9 May 2007, the convening authority agreed to dispose of this case at a SCM in consideration of the Applicant’s pleas of guilty at the SCM. Subsequent to the MOU, the command received an additional letter from the NEX bringing the total number of bad checks to 30, totaling $11,658.07, including service fees. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board ; he elected to and did submit a written statement.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant is r equesting to reenlist into the United States Navy. 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 reen try (RE) code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to RE 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . In seeking an upgrade, the Applicant contends his record of service should be considered . For the edification of the Applicant, a service member may be separated, regardless of their rank or record of service, based on commission of a serious offense when the offense warrants separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge. The NDRB opined the Applicant’s service was taken into consideration when they allowed him to enter into a MOU to avoid a SPCM, which could have resulted in a punitive discharge. The NDRB determined the awarded character of service was warranted and the narrative reason for discharge was appropriate.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends t here was no board where he could stand in front of a judge to speak to or have character witnesses ; “I was just told I was being processed out.” As noted previously, w hen notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board . The Applicant signed the administrative separation processing notification form on 15 May 2007. The NDRB determined this issue to be without merit. Relief denied.

Issue 4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his wife wa s the person writing bad checks and he had contacted the Navy Federal Credit Union to get a printout of the checks, which clearly showed it was not his signature on them. He also stated his mother-in-law obtained his social security number to obtain credit cards and loans in his name. The Applicant provided no documentation to support his contention. Per his letter dated 24 May 2007, the commanding officer stated the Applicant had “lied to the Investigating Officer saying that the account had been closed and that someone had stolen his checkbook and fraudulently issued checks in his name.” “The case was referred to the Force Protection Office Criminal Investigations Division (NCID) and on 20 December 2006, BM2 [Applicant] admitted culpability in writing checks on a closed account to Detective [investigator]. ” The NDRB determined this issue is without merit. Relief denied.

Issue 5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends there have been other S ailor s with far wo rse cases who were allow ed to continu e their careers. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the U.S. Navy. The NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for separation by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense , and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.

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 .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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 123a .


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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900093

    Original file (ND0900093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Taking into consideration the Applicant’s in-service performance as evidenced by her overall trait average of 3.40 on a 4.0 scale, her post-service accomplishments, and the mitigating circumstances related to the offenses committed by the Applicant, the NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions).Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901926

    Original file (ND0901926.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Wants reentry code changed for reenlistment purposes.2. Representation: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700731

    Original file (ND0700731.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001466

    Original file (ND1001466.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief warranted.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 change to. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0500675

    Original file (ND0500675.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.031124: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct commission of a serious offense.031124: Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501167

    Original file (ND0501167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) (2 copies) Form from Department of Veterans Affairs Letter from Applicant, dated October 16, 2005 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601088

    Original file (ND0601088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date of Decision:20070802Location of Board: Washington D.C.Complete Service Record: Complete Medical Record: Complete Discharge Package: Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: Discussion Issue 1 (Equity). 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 evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201295

    Original file (ND1201295.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants an upgrade for better employment opportunities.2. Representation: 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301323

    Original file (ND1301323.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant seeks a change to his narrative reason and separation code to correspond with a Completion of Required Service. Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall NON-RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY.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,...