Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000062
Original file (ND1000062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AMHAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20091008
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630605

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

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19940510 - 19940717     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19940718     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19970711      Highest Rank/Rate: AMHAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 39
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.6 (1)     Behavior: 3 .6 (1)        OTA: 3.60 [ under 4.0 eval system ]
         Performance: 3.0 ( 4 )     Behavior: 2.5 (4)         OTA: 2. 75 [ under 5.0 eval system ]

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

NJP :
- 199706 20 :       Article 86 (U nauthorized absence )
          Awarded: RESTR EPD Susp ended: NFIR [Extracted from Evaluation Report and Counseling Record dated 19970707.]

- 19970623 :       Article 86 (U nauthorized absence )
         Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation )
         Awarded : CONF (19970623-19970625, 3 days) Susp ended: NFIR [Extracted from Evaluation Report and Counseling Record dated 19970707.]

 S CM :    SPCM:    Retention Warning Counseling :

ARREST:
- 19970301:     Charge: Rape in the Second Degree [Extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.]

C C :
- 19970424 :       Offense: Driving under the influence
         Sentence : Confinement for 365 days, $5000 fine + other fees Suspended: 361 days of jail , $4400 of fine

- 19970430 :       Offense: Fourth Degree assault
         Sentence : Confinement for 365 days, $1000 fine + other fees Suspended: 361 days of jail

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214
The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ 3630605 ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                  Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation :           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Oth er Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements :
         From Applicant:            From /To Representation:            From /To Congress m ember :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 3 October 1996 until 12 December 1997,
Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation).

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

Applicant’s Issues
1. The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.
 2 . The Applicant contends his immaturity led to his early discharge from the Navy.
3. The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
Decision
Date: 2010 1104 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation). Additionally, the Applicant was arrested twice by civilian law enforcement, once for driving under the influence and the other for second - degree rape, which he later pled down to fourth - degree assault. He was found guilty on both accounts. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to c onsult with a qualified counsel and to submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority, but waived his right to request an administrative board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces. 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his immaturity led to his early discharge from the Navy. The NDRB determined that the Applicant's youth or age was not a mitigating factor in his misconduct. Although the Applicant says he has matured and is very patriotic now, his misconduct was serious enough to warrant separation from the Navy. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct while in the Navy were acts that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected from a Sailor. Relief denied.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant states he is gainfully employed , volunteered at the fire department for four years , and has stayed out of trouble, he failed to provide any documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. To warrant an upgrade , the Applicant’s post - service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced evidence as stated in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the A ddendum with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. Without post-service documentary evidence, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Reenlistment/RE-code 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000529

    Original file (ND1000529.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700242

    Original file (ND0700242.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19970307 - 19970706Active: 19970707 - 20010705 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010706Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20050310 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 08Mths04 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 42Highest Rank/Rate:OS2Evaluation marks (# of occasions): Performance: 4.0(2) Behavior: 3.0(2) OTA: 3.5Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NAVY "E" RIBBON (3), GOOD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00512

    Original file (ND00-00512.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00512 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000404, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copies of DD Form 214 (2) Rebuttal for Separation Recommendation to Commanding Officer of Submarine Group 2 (2pgs) Letter from Applicant (2pgs) Copies of Commanding Officer's Messages...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700558

    Original file (ND0700558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, was marred by three nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles 86 [Failure to go at the time to appointed place of duty (two specifications)] and Article 92 [Dereliction in the performance of duties (two specifications)].The Board determined that the occurrence of these offenses did establish a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801769

    Original file (MD0801769.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002068

    Original file (MD1002068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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 establishes a reason to change the characterization or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901223

    Original file (MD0901223.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : (Nondecisional) The Applicant wishes to change his reenlistment code in order to reenlist in the military.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. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01279

    Original file (ND03-01279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Applicant’s continued attendance of the Men’s Therapy Group.941007: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 0700 to 1455, 940929, violation of UCMJ Article 128: Unlawfully punch and kicked wife and struck her for about 20 minutes. 970303: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801324

    Original file (ND0801324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801089

    Original file (ND0801089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade founded upon the Applicant’s record of service 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 responsive to the...