Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000983
Original file (ND1000983.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100304
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)        20010629 - 20011021     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20011022     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050218      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 27 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.25

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20050126 :      Article 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

SPCM:

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20050126 :      For violation of A rticle 123a

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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.       Applicant w ants to receive all Veterans benefits , to include the GI Bill money to further her education.
 2.       Applicant contends the a ction tak en against her [ NJP for disobeying a lawful order to pay her bills on time ] was unjust.
3.       Applicant contends the action tak en against her, particularly her being discharged and service being characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions), was unjust and her record of service, as evidenced by her hard work as a plane captain and yeoman as well as numerous awards, warrant consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.
4 .       Applicant contends this is the only time she has ever been charged with violating the UCMJ , and therefore, no pattern of misconduct existed.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0415             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 . The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 123a ( M aking, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds). Additional documentation provided by the Applicant indicates she was charged with violating Article 92 for disobeying an order to pay her bills on time. S he stated that she received NJP for that violation, which would be her second NJP conviction . Her record of service did not include any trials by court-martial for violations of the UCMJ . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant elected rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. She waived her right to submit a written statement.

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant w ants to receive all Veterans benefits , to include the GI Bill money to further her education . The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization 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. The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of receiv ing Veterans benefits or en hancing educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

: (Non-decisional) The Applicant contends the action taking against her [ NJP for d isobeying a lawful order to pay her bills on time ] was unjust. Because the NDRB does not review the propriety and equity of NJP proceedings, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which it can grant relief. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of discharge s , which are independent of NJP proceedings.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the action taken against her, particularly her being discharged and service being characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions), was unjust and her record of service , as evidenced by her hard work as a plane captain and yeoman as well as numerous awards, warrant consideration for the characterization of her service to be upgrade d to Honorable. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 92 and Article 123a of the UCMJ are such offense s . Making, drawing, or uttering a check, draft or order without sufficient funds as well as disobeying an order or regulation can result in an unfavorable characterization of discharge, or at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP proceedings for violating Article 123a. However, her command chose not to pursue a punitive discharge but opt ed instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.
Issue 4: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the violation of Article 92 is the only time she has ever been charged with violating the UCMJ , and therefore, no pattern of misconduct existed. The Applicant failed to mention that she also received NJP on 26 January 2005 for violating Article 123a of the UCMJ. Regulations state that service members may be separated for pattern of misconduct when they have two or more NJPs. It further states that a member must have violated a NAVPERS 1070/613 warning prior to processing for separation. On 26 January 2005, the Applicant received NJP for violation of Article 123a. On that same day, she received a NAVPERS 1070/613 warning regarding that deficiency. The Board presumed regularity in that she received a second NJP and met the requirements for separation due to pattern of misconduct. The Applicant provided no evidence to rebut that presumption. Instead, she substantiated the Board ’ s presumption that she received a second NJP by providing documentation indicating she was charged with violating Article 92 on 1 February 2005 as well as stating that she received NJP for that offense. The NDRB discerned no impropriety with the discharge and determined the narrative reason for separation accurately describes why the Applicant was discharged. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, d ischarge p rocess, and evidence provided by the Applicant, 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 | 2012_Navy | ND1201376

    Original file (ND1201376.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With an NJP for violation of UCMJ Articles 121 and 123a during her enlistment, the Applicant met the requirements for administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and was equitably assigned a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301309

    Original file (MD1301309.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 Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101232

    Original file (ND1101232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for or processed for a medical board by proper authority. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00849

    Original file (ND04-00849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00849 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040427. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401069

    Original file (ND1401069.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Although the Applicant stated that she went to NJP on her DD FORM 293 in 2010 for violation of Article 92, during her personal hearing, she submitted documentary evidence showing that she requested a trial by court-martial for the Article 92 violation that coincided with being the same day that she was notified for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800977

    Original file (MD0800977.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the post service documentation and statements provided by the Applicant and did not mitigate the in service misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00618

    Original file (ND04-00618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.950622: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.950622: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.950726: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200847

    Original file (ND1200847.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900093

    Original file (ND0900093.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Taking into consideration the Applicant’s in-service performance as evidenced by her overall trait average of 3.40 on a 4.0 scale, her post-service accomplishments, and the mitigating circumstances related to the offenses committed by the Applicant, the NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions).Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01289

    Original file (ND04-01289.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 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.