Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000864
Original file (ND1000864.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PSSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100112
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)        19920908 - 1992091 6     Active:   19920917 - 19980408
                                    1998 0409 - 20020322

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020323     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : 6 Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080701      Highest Rank/Rate: PS1
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 7 )      Behavior: 4.0 ( 7 )        OTA: 3.88

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (X4) (X2) (X2) (X2)

Periods of UA :

NJP : S CM :

SPCM:

- 20070815 :       Art icle (False official statement , 4 specifications )
         Specification 1: At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL , on or about 21 November 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker I II had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000 .
         Specification 2: At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 14 September 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker III had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000 .
         Specification 3: At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 12 September 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official travel voucher, falsely stating that PS1’s was claiming a dependent husband Freeman Jermaine Walker III when in fact PS1 was no longer married.
         Specification 4: At or near Patuxent River, Maryland, on or about 8 March 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker III had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000 .

         Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation , 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Did at or near Patuxent River, Maryland, from about 29 July 2002 to 7 September 2006, steal money by claiming BAH for a dependent husband who in actual ity she was no longer married to, military property of a value of about $10,623.58, the property of US Navy.
         Specification 2: Did at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, from about 8 September to 15 November 2006, steal money by claiming BAH for a dependent husband who in actuality she was no longer married to, military property of a value of about $ 942 . 93 , the property of US Navy.

         Article (Forgery). Did at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 3 December 2006, with intent to defraud, offer false IA military Orders transferring her to Iraq to Chief Eggleton’s home, if believed would allow PS1 to activate military clause in her lease allowing her to fraudulent obtain early release from her lease.

         Article 132 (Frauds against the United States). Did, at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 9 August 2006 fraudulently presented travel advance voucher making a claim against the US Navy for amount of $2,463.82 for travel reimbursement, of which $863.00 PS1 claimed as dependent per diem, mileage reimbursement, and dislocation allowance, even though PS1 was no longer married.
        
         Sentence : for 6 months

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:           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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 21, effective 19 December 2007 until Present, Article 5815-010, EXECUTING A DISHONORABLE OR BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(a), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant seeks clemency to enhance employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable because her 15 years of service was not considered .
3.        The Applicant believes her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
Decision

Date : 20 1 1 0310             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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant's clemency request, relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts.

The Applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s record of service included for of the UCMJ: Article 107 ( False official statement, 4 specifications : At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 21 November 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker III had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000; At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 14 September 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker III had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000; At or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 12 September 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official travel voucher, falsely stating that PS1’s was claiming a dependent husband Freeman Jermaine Walker III when in fact PS1 was no longer married; At or near Patuxent River, Maryland, on or about 8 March 2006, with intent to deceive, signed official Dependency Application/Record of Emergency Data, falsely stating that PS1’s marriage to Freeman Jermaine Walker III had ended on 15 November 2006 when said marriage ended 15 November 2000 ) , Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation, did at or near Patuxent River, Maryland, from about 29 July 2002 to 7 September 2006, steal money by claiming BAH for a dependent husband who in actuality she was no longer married to, military property of a value of about $10,623.58, the property of US Navy , did at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, from about 8 September to 15 November 2006, steal money by claiming BAH for a dependent husband who in actuality she was no longer married to, military property of a value of about $942.93, the property of US Navy ), Article 123 ( Forgery, did at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 3 December 2006, with intent to defraud, offer false IA military Orders transferring her to Iraq to Chief Eggleton’s home, if believed would allow PS1 to activate military clause in her lease allowing her to fraudulent obtain early release from her lease ), and Article 132 ( Frauds against the United States, did, at or near NAS Jacksonville, FL, on or about 9 August 2006 fraudulently presented travel advance voucher making a claim against the US Navy for amount of $2,463.82 for travel reimbursement, of which $863.00 PS1 claimed as dependent per diem, mileage reimbursement, and dislocation allowance, even though PS1 was no longer married. ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, s he was convicted at a SPCM and was separated from the Navy with a Bad Conduct discharge.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks clemency 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 her discharge is inequitable , because her 15 years of service was not considered . D espite a Sailor’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Naval Service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Forgery, f raud, l arceny , and wrongful appropriation are considered serious offense s according to the UCMJ . From the Record of Trial, it is apparent that the Applicant purposely and by design committed fraud against the U . S . Government over an extended period of time . As a senior Personnelman with many years of experience in the Navy, it is hard to contend the Applicant was not aware of her actions. The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects h er service. Clemency denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. The Applicant submitted medical training certificates and a notification of enrollment at Fort Hays State University. To warrant clemency, 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 Addendum with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee clemency. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s post-service effort does not warrant clemency.
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 for additional information.


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 | 2006_Navy | ND0600218

    Original file (ND0600218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND06-00218 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051116. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) or uncharacterized. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01277

    Original file (ND04-01277.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01277 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040809. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with Title 32, CFR, Section 724.116 and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, Part I, Paragraph 1.20, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739

    Original file (BC-2006-01739.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0258

    Original file (FD2002-0258.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSN/SSAN

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100012318

    Original file (AR20100012318.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00276

    Original file (FD2006-00276.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (No appeal) (No mitigation) .......................... (2) 22 Oct 00, Hurlburt Field, FL - Article 121. HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (AFSOC) DEPARTMENT OF TElE AIR FORCE =BURT FIELD, FLORIDA 32544-5273 cO-urt-M& Order In the special court-martial case of AIRMAN BASIC i United States Air Force, 16th Transportation Squadron, t h e - i ~ i i n ~ e - i 0 - a ~ b - a 6 ~ ~ 0 d ~ e and confinement for 4 months as promulgated in Special Court-Martial Order No. Plea: G...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00684

    Original file (ND99-00684.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND99-00684 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 990427, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: did, at or near Kingsville, TX, on or about 11 Jan 93 wrongfully appropriate dependent travel benefits payments, of a value of $909.70, the property of the U.S. Government. 961004: BUPERS recommended to the Secretary of the Navy that applicant be discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501545

    Original file (ND0501545.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Character Reference ltr from T_ T. C_ (Applicant), undated, not signedNational Personnel Records Check for Applicant, dtd November 4, 2005 Ltr form National Personnel Records Center, dtd February 13, 2006 Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Service 2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: None Active:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600269

    Original file (ND0600269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)Navy Achievement Medal Citation (2)Service Record Documents (14 pgs )Statement from Applicant (4 pgs)Certificate of Achievement for being a member of Joint Task Force Bravo PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19890428 – 19890611COG Active:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001693

    Original file (AR20090001693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved...