Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001269
Original file (ND1001269.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ATAN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100420
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge: PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20011114 - 20020723     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020724     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060512      Highest Rank/Rate: AT3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 19 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 70
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.7 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.7 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.16

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol NAI

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20021219 :       Article (Violation of a lawful order, underage drinking)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20060331 :       Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 200212 19 :       For OIC’s NJP on 20021219 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, order violation.

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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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

 Decisional issues : The Applicant contends that he was young and immature a t the time of his misconduct and that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable given his stellar performance of duties and qualifications; as such, he contends he warrants consideration for an upgrade in his characterization of service.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0628            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 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; additionally, 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 did not provide and documentation for the NDRB’s consideration or to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs.

The Applicant entered military service at age 18 on a four-year enlistment with a twenty-four month extension; he completed three year and nine months of his six years of obligated service. The Applicant ’s enlistment acceptance included a waiver to induction standards due to pre-service illegal drug use ( marijuana ). The Applicant’s official record of service contain s one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention-warning counseling regarding his violation of the UCMJ . T he Applicant ’ s service record further contains two nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulations, 2 specification s) . Additionally, the Applicant was taken to a disciplinary review board due to misconduct and received extra military instruction to correct his deficiencies.

The Applicant was discharged from the Naval Service due to Misconduct , specifically, having established a pattern of misconduct as defined by Article 1910-140 of the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN). The Separation Authority reviewed the Command’s recommendation for separation; determined that the Applicant’s documented record of service established the minimum requirements for discharge based on a pattern of misconduct; that separation in the Applicant’s case was warranted; and further, that the proposed characterization of service - General (Under Honorable Conditions) - was warranted. On 05 May 2006 , the Separation Authority directed the Applicant be discharged for the reason as stated and that he receive an RE-4 reenlistment code (not recommended for reenlistment). The NDRB review ed the Applicant’s discharge package ; the Applicant was notified of separation processing on 01 May 2006. He was further advised that the least favorable characterization of service was General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Applicant elected to waive his right to consult with qualified counsel and to submit written matters to the Separation Authority for consideration in the discharge action. The Applicant did not warrant an administrative separation board due to the proposed characterization of service and not having achieved at least six years of service.

(Decisional Issue ) ( ) . The Applicant contends that he was young and immature a the time of his misconduct and that his discharge characterization of service was inequitable given his stellar performance of duties and qualifications; as such, he contends he warrants consideration for an upgrade in his characterization of service to Honorable. In accordance with the MILPERSMAN, a service member may be discharged, involuntarily, when their conduct or performance of duties meets one of the established reasons for separation. Although his administrative discharge was the result of misconduct, it was not part of a punitive punishment awarded at a trial by court-martial, which could have resulted in a substantially more harsh discharge. Based upon the available service records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. The Applicant received a retention counseling warning after his first document ed misconduct ; he violated that retention warning and was taken

to a disciplin ary review board where he received Extra Military Instruction. Continuing with misconduct, the Applicant was taken to Captain’s Mast where he was found guilty of violating the UCMJ. Given the two n onjudicial punishments, coupled with a written retention warning and a disciplinary review board, the required elements for separation based on Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) were satisfied. After a detailed review of the facts, circumstances, and issues unique to this discharge action, the NDRB determined that the Applicant was discharged properly in accordance with the MILPERSMAN. As such, relief based on matters of propriety is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that his youth or immaturity was the underlying cause of his misconduct. The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service but still manage to serve honorably. While it is underst ood that some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct. The Applicant chose to violate willfully those rules and regulation that were established to ensure good order, discip line, and safety of the force.

A service member’s characterization of service at discharge is recognition of performance and conduct during an enlistment; it is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation. When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duties outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s record of performance and conduct reflected a documented pattern of misconduct - willful violation s of the UCMJ based on an inability to comply with rules and regulation. After reviewing the Applicant’s official service record and supporting documentation, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the characterization of his service, was honest and faithful ; however, the Applicant’s documented misconduct was a significant negative aspect of the member’s conduct or performance and did outweigh the positive aspects of his service record. As such, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service at discharge was appropriate, was equitable, and was consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. The NDRB determined that an upgrade would be inappropriate; accordingly, relief is denied.

Summary : After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB found that the discharge was proper, equitable, and not prejudicial to the Applicant. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801260

    Original file (ND0801260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700156

    Original file (MD0700156.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.. Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP)19990730 - 20000820Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20000821Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20030210 Length of Service: 02 Yrs 05Mths10 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education Level: Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 31MOS:3381Highest Rank: Proficiency/Conduct marks (# of occasions): 3.8(7)/3.8(7)Fitness reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):NATIONAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101663

    Original file (ND1101663.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. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200237

    Original file (ND1200237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: NONE 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800176

    Original file (ND0800176.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300631

    Original file (MD1300631.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant, however, was not taken to a Special Court-Martial but was administratively separated after requesting separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (SILT). The Applicant could have provided additional documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201287

    Original file (MD1201287.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. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT ,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701216

    Original file (ND0701216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100919

    Original file (ND1100919.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Also any member who fails to participate in, fails to follow, or fails to successfully complete any medically prescribed and command-approved aftercare plan is deemed an alcohol rehabilitation failure.After a detailed review of the documentary evidence, and the Applicant’s testimony, the NDRB determined that the Applicant did receive the proper treatment program as required by Naval Instruction; that he was determined to be a treatment failure due to his alcohol-related misconduct while in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000579

    Original file (ND1000579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported the basis for discharge and that separation from the Naval Service was warranted; as such, he directed that the basis for separation on the DD Form 214 be Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct. The Separation Authority further directed that the Applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of his service and that he receive an RE-4 reenlistment code (not recommended for...