Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000962
Original file (ND1000962.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MSSR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100302
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)        19980227 - 19980414     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980415     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19991223      Highest Rank/Rate: MSSA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 09 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 39
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (w/1 small Bronze Star) ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 19991004 :       Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19991004 :       For violation of A rticle 111, drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel on 19990818.

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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
29 March 2000, Article 1910-142, Separation 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 111 (Drunken Driving).



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that his discharge was the result of his alcoholism, which he is now seeking treatment for, and as such, warrants consideration for an upgrade in the characterization of his servi ce at discharge to Honorable.

Decision

 Date: 2011 04 07 Location: Washington D.C.        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 discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge, if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the NDRB 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 identified one decisional issue for the NDRB’s consideration . 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 provided copies of recent successful completion of Alcohol Rehabilitation Treatment Programs and a copy of a civilian court document finding him not guilty of Driving U nder the Influence of Alcohol on 24 November 1999 as charged by local civilian law enforcement.

During the current enlistment period, the Applicant received one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning. The Applicant’s period of enlistment under review also included one nonjudicial punishment for violation of Article 111 (Drunken Driving) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . The Applicant was assigned to a formal intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program that he successfully completed on 15 September 1999. The Applicant was given a specific aftercare program to follow that mandated abstinence from alcohol and continued monitored aftercare. On 24 November 1999 , the Applicant was arrested and charged with a second driving under the influence of alcohol incident by a civilian law enforcement agency.

The Applicant was notified by his Commanding Officer that he was being recommend ed for administrative separation on 14 December 1999 . The Applicant was advised that the basis for separation was MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) in accordance with Article 1910-142 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) and Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure in accordance with Article 1910-152 . The Command further advised the Applicant that the least favorable characterization of service he could receive at discharge was a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The NDRB reviewed the Applicant’s administrative separation package; the Applicant acknowledged – in writing – that he understood that the least favorable characterization of service at discharge was General (Under Honorable Conditions). He further elected to waive his right to consult with qualified legal counsel and to submit a statement to the Separation Authority for consideration in his case ; the Applicant’s proposed separation process did not warrant the right to elect an administrative hearing board. On 22 December 1999 , the Separation Authority approved the recommendation for discharge and designated the primary basis for separation was MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) – having determined that the evidence of record supported the basis for discharge – and that the characterization of service recommended by the chain of command was warranted. On 23 December 1999, the Applicant was discharged with a General (Under Honorable conditions) characterization of his service for MISCONDUCT. He was further advised that he was not recommended for reenlistment or reentry and was issued an RE-4 reentry code .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his discharge was the result of his alcoholism, which he is now seeking treatment for, and as such, warrants consideration for an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge to Honorable. 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. In accordance with Article 1910-142 of the MILPERSMAN, service members may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the Commanding Officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related military offense. Furthermore, administrative separation for the commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by non-judicial or judicial proceedings; however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The Applicant’s service record formally documents a determination of guilt for violation of Article 111 of the UCMJ (Drunken Driving , 18 August 1999) at a nonjudicial punishment (Captain’s Mast) held on 04 October 1999. In accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial, violation of Article 111 of the UCMJ warrants a punitive discharge and confinement for up to eighteen months, if adjudicated at trial by court-martial; thus, violation of Article 111 meets the requirement of the MILPERSMAN for administrative separation due to the commission of a serious offen se.

Additionally, the Applicant was notified for separation due to being an Alcohol Rehabilitation F ailure after completing an intensive outpatient treatment program. The Commanding Officer determined that the Applicant’s arrest by civilian law enforcement for Driving U nder the Influence of Alcohol on 24 November 1999 was a second alcohol - related incident . The subsequent dismissal of the charges does not change the fact that it was an alcohol-related incident. As such, the Applicant warranted separation in accordance with Article 1910-152 of the MILPERSMAN. The Separation Authority approved the Command’s recommendation for discharge and designated that the basis for separation would be M ISCONDUCT (Serious Offense), having determined that the evidence of record supported both reasons for discharge, but that discharge for MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) was the more appropriate basis for the Applicant’s administrative separation.

Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. The Applicant was accorded the opportunity to present his case , in writing , to the Separation Authority , but waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommend ation in the letter of notification. Based on a review of the evidence and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct properly satisfied the requirements established for separation based on M ISCONDUCT ( S erious O ffense) as the primary basis for discharge. Additionally, the Applicant’s documented Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure during his enlistment supported the secondary basis for discharge – Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure . As such, the NDRB determined there was no impropriety due to an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion with the discharge. Accordingly, relief based on propriety is denied.

Based on the seriousness of the offense committed, coupled with the Applicant’s failure to comply with his rehabilitation treatment program and his prior formal retention counseling warning regarding his personal misconduct, the Command recommended separation with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service at discharge. The Separation Authority reviewed the evidence of record and the gravity of the miscondcut and directed the Applicant be separated for MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) and that he be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. An Honorable characterization of service is warranted when the quality of a member’s service generally meets the standard of acceptable conduct and performance for naval personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record.

Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful, but that significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct and performance of duties as outlined in the preceding paragraphs did outweigh the positive aspects of his service record. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service at discharge. The NDRB’s vote was unanimous that an upgrade is not appropriate and that relief is not warranted; therefore, the character of the discharge shall not change. 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 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 | ND1001764

    Original file (ND1001764.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant’s repeated alcohol rehabilitation failures after receiving Level II and Level III alcohol rehabilitation treatment, to include two DUIs subsequent to completing treatment (3 career incidents involving driving while under the influence), and a previous COMNAVPERSCOM waiver of administrative separation(Feb 2006), his command processed for separationin accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN). On 24 Oct 2008, the Applicant’s Commanding Officer...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00868

    Original file (ND04-00868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19900628 - 19900912 COG Active: None Period of Service Under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100035

    Original file (ND1100035.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 Board determined that the unique circumstances surrounding the misconduct warranted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300980

    Original file (ND1300980.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501558

    Original file (ND0501558.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was discharged from the Navy under a general (under honorable conditions) discharge characterization as a result of “the commission of a serious offense”. The command has provided various forms of assistance and help for his alcohol problems; however, AA N_ (Applicant) continues to have alcohol related incidents.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040820 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101213

    Original file (ND1101213.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400116

    Original file (ND1400116.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy when determining a member’s discharge characterization.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101103

    Original file (ND1101103.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 | 2015_Marine | MD1401670

    Original file (MD1401670.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00150

    Original file (ND00-00150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant declined treatment.960723: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under Other Than Honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the Commission of a serious offense as evidence by violation of UCMJ, Article 111 (Drunken driving) and Alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, when he refused to participate in Level II Alcohol treatment.960723: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ, Article 27B,...