Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000220
Original file (ND1000220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AZAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20091027
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE]

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19870325 - 19870712     Active:            19870713 - 19910711

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19910712     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19941101      Highest Rank/Rate: AZ3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 10 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 29
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.8 ( 5 )      Behavior: 3.7 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.55

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (x 3 )
Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 19940329 :      Article (Wrongful possession of a firearm aboard military installation in violation of station regulation )
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 19940921 :      Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance – to wit; possession of cocaine aboard a federal installation )
         Article 90 ( Disobe dience of a lawful order from superior commissioned officer )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM: CC:

CIVILIAN CHARGES:
- Unknown :        Felony Charges in the State of Florida for drug trafficking and selling of a controlled substance - cocaine . [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s message dated 941006.]

Retention Warning Counseling :

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 870713 UNTIL 910711 ”
         “ 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 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996,
Article 3630600, 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 112(a) .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant did not identify any issues nor submit any statement on his Form DD-293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0114    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 Applicant introduced no decisional issues for consideration by the NDRB. However, t he NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

The Applicant’s record of service reflects entry into the service without any waivers for enlistment eligibility. The Applicant’s record of service reflects one honorable period of enlistment from July 1987 to July 1991, which included service in the Persian Gulf /Northern Arabian Gulf in support of Operation DESERT SHIELD and Operation DESERT STORM, qualifying the Applicant as a G ulf W ar veteran.

Throughout his enlistments, the Applicant received one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning for his repeated failure of the Physical Fitness Assessment. T he Applicant’s period of enlistment under review included two nonjudicial punishment s for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice , as follow s :

•         Article 90 (Willfully disobeying the lawful order of a superior commissioned officer)
•         Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation – to wit, wrongful possession of a firearm aboard a federal military installation in violation of station order )
•         Article 112 (a) (Wrongful use, possession, etc of controlled substances; to wit: cocaine) .

Additionally, at the time of the Applicant’s administrative separation from the Naval Service , he was pending felony charges in civilian court for trafficking and sale of controlled substances in violation of Florida State Statutes.

Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain proper order and discipline - violation of Article 112a (Drugs) meets this standard. The Applicant acknowledged the U.S. Navy Drug Policy, in writing, on both March 24 and June 15, 1987. The Applicant was fully aware that there was a zero - tolerance policy for drug abuse , and he acknowledged the consequences for violating it. Violation of Article 112a is also an offense requiring mandatory processing for administrative separation, regardless of grade or time in service. This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of service at discharge, or, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge.

In accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, an individual may be processed for administrative separation for the commission of a serious offense when the Manual for Courts-Martial would authorize a punitive discharge for the same or a closely related offense. In the Applicant’s case, violation of Article s 90, 92, and 112(a) each warrant a punitive discharge and confinement for up to 5 years, if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial.

Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, he was recommended for administrative separation pursuant to both A rticle 3630600 (Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense) and A rticle 3630620(Misconduct - Drugs) of the Nav al Military Personnel Manual. When notified of the administrative separation processing using the board notification procedure, the Applicant waived his right to consult with qualified counsel, waived his right to submit a written statement, and did not request an administrative board hearing. Furthermore, the Applicant stated in writing that he did not object to the involuntary separation action.

Based on the seriousness of the offenses, coupled with the pending civilian felony charges, the Command recommended separation of the Applicant with a primary basis of MISCONDUCT - Commission of a Serious Offense with an Under Other Than Honorable characterization of service at discharge. The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence and the gravity of the charges and direct ed the Applicant be separated for MISCONDUCT - Commission of a Serious Offense and that he be separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the narrative reason for discharge or the characterization of the A pplicant’s service at discharge. The NDRB’s vote was unanimous that an upgrade would not be appropriate and relief is not warranted; therefore, the character of the discharge and the reason for discharge shall not change.

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 870713 UNTIL 910711” and Narrative Reason for Separation, should read “ MISCONDUCT .” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected, as appropriate, and a new DD-214 or a DD-215 (correction) be issued.

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 is no longer eligible for a personal appearance hearing due to a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge having elapsed. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801831

    Original file (ND0801831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001656

    Original file (ND1001656.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 | 2010_Marine | MD1000011

    Original file (MD1000011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    paragraph 6210.6 of the MARCORSEPMAN provides a basis for separation of a Marine by the commission of a serious military or civilian offense under the following circumstances: (1)when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation; and, (2) a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the UCMJ. The administrative discharge board was convened and recommended the Applicant be separated for Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100310

    Original file (ND1100310.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.Naval Military Personnel...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001200

    Original file (ND1001200.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 09 July 1997, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant be discharged for the reason as stated and that he receive an RE-4 re-enlistment code - not recommended for re-enlistment. Based on a review of the evidence of record and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct did properly satisfy the requirements established by the MILPERSMAN for separation based on the commission of a serious offense, a pattern of misconduct, and drug abuse. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800573

    Original file (ND0800573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20040722 - 20040729 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040730Period of enlistment:4 YearsDate of Discharge:20051110Length of Service: Yrs Mths10 DysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 82Highest Rank/Rate:AZANEvaluation marks:Performance: 4.0 (3) Behavior:2.0 (3)OTA: 2.94 (3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,and NJP:20050907: Violation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001199

    Original file (ND1001199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in reviewing the Applicant’s issue, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the Applicant’s discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a waiver to enlistment standards for pre-service drug use (marijuana) confirmed by a positive urinalysis test result at the Military Processing Center while in the Delayed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001460

    Original file (ND1001460.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. ” Additional Reviews : After...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00261

    Original file (ND01-00261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00261 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010103, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. I am a man of different character than during my time of service. At this time the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100604

    Original file (ND1100604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service during her enlistment period reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning being issued. Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record documents four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically: Article 86 (Absent without leave, 4 specifications of unauthorized absence); Article 87 (Missing movement); Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer); Article 91...