Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001126
Original file (ND1001126.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AEAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100330
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)        20000428 - 20000514     Active:   20000515 - 20040513 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040514     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050228      Highest Rank/Rate: AE 2
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 78
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 4.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.71

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Period of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20050203 :       Article ( Unauthorized a bsence from place of duty ), 3 specification s
         Specification 1 : 0600-1500, 20050131
          Specification 2: 0645-0800, 20050201
         Specification 3: 0730-1000, 20050203
         Awarded : (to E-4) Susp ended:

- 200502 15 :      Article (Unauthorized absence ), 20050209(0800) - 20050211(1720)
                  Article 92 (Failure to obey order, CO’s restriction), 13 specifications
                  Specifications 1-3: 1000 and 1800 muster; 1600 leaving restriction boundary, 20050204
                  Specifications 4- 7 : 0600, 1000, 1800 and 2000 muster, 20050205
                  Specifications 8-9: 1905 muster not in uniform; 2000 not at recall location, 20050205
                  Specifications 10-12: 0800, 1000, and 1400 muster, 20050206
                  Specification 13: 0600 muster, 20050207
                   Awarded: (to E-3) RESTR Suspended:

S CM :   

SPCM:   

C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050203 :       For violation of UCMJ Ar ticle 86, 3 specifications


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 000515 UNTIL 040513 ”
         “ UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ”

         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), 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 contends his discharge was improper due to isolated misconduct in nearly five years of service.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 05 19             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 discharg e 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 identif ied one decisional issue for the Board ’s consideration . The Board co nducted a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning for three specifications of unauthorized absence and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 4 specifications: 0600-1500, 31 Jan 2005; 0645-0800, 1 Feb 2005; 0730-1000, 3 Feb 2005; 0800, 9 Feb 2005 to 1720, 11 Feb 2005 ) and Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order, CO’s restriction, 13 specifications: (4 Feb 2005) 1000 and 1800 muster, leaving restriction boundary; (5 Feb 2005) 0600, 1000, 1800 and 2000 muster; (5 Feb 2005) 1905 muster not in uniform, 2000 not at recall location; (6 Feb 2005) 0800, 1000, and 1400 muster; (7 Feb 2005) 0600 muster. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 22 Feb 2005 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board . The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 22 Feb 2008 with a n Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge for Pattern of Misconduct.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was improper due to isolated misconduct in nearly five years of service. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the N aval S ervice in order to maintain proper order and discipline ; violation of UCMJ Article 92 meets this standard . Since an administrative discharge is not punishment, the decision to administratively discharge a service member is made independently of and does not require adjudication at court s -martial or nonjudicial punishment. The characterization of service is a description of the total service provided during the member’s enlistment. When the service of a member of the Naval Service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as H onorable. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is warranted when a member engages in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the N aval S ervice. The Applicant’s service included multiple violation s of UCMJ Article 86 (UA) , which resulted in NJP on 3 Feb 2005 and a Page 13 retention warning. Beginning the very next day after NJP, the Applicant embarked on an 8 - day period of continued misconduct that included more than 57 hours of unauthorized absence and 13 instances of violating UCMJ Article 92 , each of which constitutes the “commission of a serious offense ” and is punishable by up to 6 months confinement and a B ad Co nduct D ischarge if awarded at trial by courts-martial (Special or General). The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Sailors , especially one of his length of service , and falls short of what is required for an upgrade.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and the administrative separation 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000951

    Original file (ND1000951.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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01318

    Original file (MD02-01318.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01318 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200827

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

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge was based on minor infractions and was not a Pattern of Misconduct. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000142

    Original file (ND1000142.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 . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301530

    Original file (ND1301530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge to help an Applicant’s life or to help him support his family. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801109

    Original file (ND0801109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700031

    Original file (ND0700031.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or “PTSD. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002230

    Original file (MD1002230.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: UNCHARACTERIZED OR GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20031219 - 20040801Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20040802Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20070125Highest Rank:Length of Service: Years Months24 DaysEducation Level: AFQT:59MOS: 0300Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001772

    Original file (ND1001772.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 the administrative separation 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 15...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000904

    Original file (ND1000904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It also included summary courts-martial for of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Unauthorized absence, 12 specifications) and Article 134 (Breaking restriction, 2 specifications).Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. Relief denied.Summary:...