Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000065
Original file (ND1000065.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AMEAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20091008
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)        20030114 - 20030720     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030721     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050817      Highest Rank/Rate: AMEAN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 27 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :
- 20050405 :      Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation - underage drinking )
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
          Awarded: CCU Suspended:

- 20050623 :      Article (Failure to obey an order or regulation - underage drinking )
         Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20050727

- 20050812 :      Article (Failure to go to appointed place of duty , to wit: restriction muster - 8 specifications )
         Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation - 10 specifications by failing to go to restricted muster and entering Navy Exchange and McDonald’s dining facility while in restricted status )
         Article 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order without sufficient funds - 2 specifications : Check to Navy Exchange for $45.00 on 20050714 and Check to VS-31 Geedunk for $5.00 on 20050715 )
         Awarded : Recommendation for administrative separation Susp ended:

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :
- 20050623 :       Date extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20050816.




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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008,
Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues
1. The Applicant seeks an upgrade to e nhance employment opportunities.
2 . The Applicant contends his discharge was due to his immaturity and not ready to handle so much responsibility.
3. The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
Decision
Date: 20101104 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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Unauthorized absence by failing to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restriction muster - 8 specifications), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation - 12 specifications), Article 112 (Drunk on duty) , and Article 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order without sufficient funds - 2 specifications) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and to submit a written statement for consideration by the separating authority.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was due to his immaturity and his inability to handle so much responsibility. The NDRB determined that the Applicant's youth or age was no t a mitigating factor in his misconduct. The NDRB recognizes serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. However, mo st members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their H onorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due. The NDRB determined that it would be inappropriate to grant an upgrade. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant states he is gainfully employed, attended college , e arned an AWS certification for welding , and has stayed out of trouble, he failed to provide any documentary evidence, besides a character reference and a certificate of appreciation, 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 additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. 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 limited post - service documentation provided. 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, Employment/Educational Opportunities 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1100071

    Original file (ND1100071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, court-martial proceedings, discharge process and documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial was appropriate for the offenseshe committed.Clemency not warranted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200827

    Original file (ND1200827.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge was based on minor infractions and was not a Pattern of Misconduct. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100967

    Original file (ND1100967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his honorable service outweighs his misconduct.Despite a service member’s record of service, certain actions warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. With documented misconduct, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service was appropriate.The NDRB determined that the discharge was proper and equitable and that relief based on this issue is not warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400203

    Original file (MD1400203.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300422

    Original file (MD1300422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902459

    Original file (ND0902459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, a unauthorized absence of almost 5 months and missing a ship’s movement, which formed the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization was appropriate; an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB opined that the administrative board took into account the Applicant’s record of service and family issues when it made its...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601181

    Original file (ND0601181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    USS JOHN C. STENNIS APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMIN BOARD ICO APPLICANT Medical Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation NONE Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Discharge Process: Date Notified:20050805Reason for Discharge due to: due to: Least Favorable Characterization: Record Supports Narrative Reason: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20050805Rights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Administrative Board Obtain Copies Submit...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301823

    Original file (ND1301823.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901920

    Original file (ND0901920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301454

    Original file (MD1301454.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20090115 - 20090823Active:Pre-Service Drug Waiver: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20090824Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20120430Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)07 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:70MOS: 0651Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):()/()Fitness Reports: Awards and...