Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902456
Original file (ND0902456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-LT, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20090901
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: SECNAVINST 1920.6B

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


Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive: USN (ROTC)     19 990823 - 20010511      Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Appointment : 20010512     Age:
Years Contracted : Indefinite
Date of Discharge: 2 0060228       Highest Rank : LT
Length of Service: 0 4 Year(s) Month(s) 19 D ay(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: NFIR
Officer’s Fitness reports: Available

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20050803:       Article 92 (Disobeying a lawful order , wrongfully having an interpersonal relationship with HT2 )
         Article 107 (False official statement)
         Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer )
          Awarded : PUNITIVE LETTER OF REPRIMAND 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 :   



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. The Applicant believes her discharge was unjust.
2. The Applicant feels her discharge was extremely harsh in light of her superior performance as a Naval Officer.

Decision

Date : 20 10 0304 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 did complete a thorough review of the circumstances which led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation – wrongfully having an interpersonal relationship with an enlisted Sailor - HT2 ) , Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer). The Applicant conduct was detected through an investigation conducted by the command into allegations of fraternization between a different Navy officer and an enlisted Sailor. Discover during th is investigation was the inappropriate rela tionship between the Applicant an d an enlisted Sailor, whic h led the command to take disciplinary action against her . The Applicant was sent to NJP, where she received a punitive letter of reprimand. The Applicant appealed her NJP through Commodores Mast, but the Commodore upheld the NJP findings. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command elected to process for separation. The Applicant chose to submit a letter of resignation and requested a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge. The command approved the Applicant’s discharge per her request.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was unjust , stating that , although friends , she and the enlisted sailor did not have intimate relations . T he Preliminary Investigating Officer , per the command’s direction, conducted a thorough investigation into alleged fraternization taking place amongst the personnel in the command. A relationship between an officer and an enlisted service member does not have to involve intimate relations to be deemed prejudicial to good order and discipline —criteria that is conveyed repeatedly to all officers . The NDRB determined that the command conducted a thorough review of all evidence, to include multiple statements from each of the accused parties, and found that the c ommand’s actions were proper , warranted and within the scope of the command’s authority. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was extremely harsh and should be upgraded based on her record of service , which was superior apart from a single period of misconduct. Despite a Sailor’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the n aval service in order to maintain good order and discipline. Fraternization between an officer and an enlisted service member can be extremely damaging to the moral e of a unit. Officers must treat all service members equally and without any hint of favoritism. An inappropriately familiar relationship damages unit cohesiveness and impacts combat readiness. Additionally, officers are held to a higher standard than enlisted members and must be leaders in actions as well as words. 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. Fraternization falls into the “significant negative aspects” category of conduct. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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 . 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 Additio nal Reviews, and Post-Service Conduct .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6B (ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF OFFICERS), effective 13 December 1999 until Present establishes policies, standards and procedures for the administrative separation of Navy and Marine Corps officers from the naval service in accordance with Title 10, United States Code and DoD Directive 1332.30 of 14 March 1997 .
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 Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation), Article 107 (False official statement) and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer ).


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 | ND0900784

    Original file (ND0900784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, General (Under Honorable Conditions), was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post-service documentation provided 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300039

    Original file (ND1300039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends she was denied her rights under Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial.6.The Applicant contends she received three Nonjudicial Punishments (NJPs) for the same alleged offenses.7.The Applicant contends she received punishment twice for the same alleged offenses.8. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501504

    Original file (ND0501504.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Charge IV: Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Specification 1: In that Lieutenant Junior Grade S_ J. D_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, USS STETHEM, on active duty, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by Commanding Officer, USS STETHEM, to wit: NONPUNITIVE LETTER OF CAUTION, dated December 02, 2002, an order which it was her duty to obey, did, on or about Dec 03, 2002, fail to obey the same by wrongfully continuing a personal relationship with GM2 R_ D. M_. Specification 2: In that Lieutenant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201130

    Original file (ND1201130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0501120

    Original file (MD0501120.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. This letter and supporting documentation is my personal request for a review of my discharge issued by the United States Marine Corps, though the Secretary of the Navy, on 15 October 2003. While there is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2005_Marine | MD0500419

    Original file (MD0500419.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By unanimous vote, the BOI recommended that that Applicant be separated from the naval service for the reasons listed above and the service be characterized as other than honorable.020211: Applicant’s request denied. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (B and C).The Applicant contends that his discharge was improper because the Board of Inquiry (BOI), which...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900345

    Original file (ND0900345.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01030

    Original file (MD99-01030.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the Board. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00177

    Original file (MD03-00177.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00177 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Although Major L_ (Applicant) requests that he be separated with an Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service, he acknowledges that he may be separated with an Other Than Honorable characterization of service. The NDRB respects the fact the Applicant had...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801072

    Original file (MD0801072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CA, per the requirements set out in paragraph 4003 of MCO P5800.16A (Marine Corps Manual for Legal Administration) forwarded the report of NJP to CMC (JAM), with the recommendation the applicant's letter of resignation be accepted and the Applicant be discharged with a “ General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by...