Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001276
Original file (ND1001276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100428
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)        20040524 - 20040607     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040608     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080505      Highest Rank/Rate: MM3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 28 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 87
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 2 )      Behavior: 3 . 0 ( 2 )        OTA: 3.0 8

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :              S CM :             SPCM:             C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Awarded, should read: “ COMBAT ACTION RIBBON GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR SERVICE M E DAL SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION(2) ENLISTED SURFACE WARFARE BREAST INSIGNIA ”

         “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”
        
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), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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 specific violation s of the UCMJ .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.
2.       Applicant contends the misconduct that led to his separation was unintentional and due to youth and immaturity.
Decision

Date: 20 1 1 06 27             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 . T he Board did complete d a thorough review of the Applicant’s service records, but due to lack of documentary evidence of any misconduct and without any administrative separation documentation, the Board was unable to thoroughly analyze the facts and circumstances that led to discharge or the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, commanding officer’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP), or tri a l by courts-martial. A note listed in the remarks section of the Applicant’s enlistment contract annotates “no immigration records , ” but does state applicable information was gathered from the Applicant’s G reen C ard. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant exercised or waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the misconduct that led to his separation was unintentional and due to youth and immaturity. 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 evidence submitted by the Applicant. However, the NDRB must also review the service records to determine whether the Applicant’s discharge met the standards of propriety and equity per the applicable directives in effect at the time of separation. The Board determined that the Applicant was likely separated for some type of misconduct related to his immigration from Nigeria and subsequent enlistment in the Navy , which met the criteria for a serious offense. However, with no charge sheet, court memoranda, or administrative separation documentation available for review, and in c onsideration of the Applicant’s evaluation report trait averages and significant character letters written on behalf of the Applicant by his Division Officer and the Command Chaplain, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. Full relief to Honorable was not granted due to the presumption of regularity in that there had to have been some misconduct that resulted in the Applicant’s separation.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice and r ecord e ntries, 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801559

    Original file (ND0801559.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Violation of Article 112a is one such offense requiring mandatory separation regardless of time in service or grade. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301648

    Original file (ND1301648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the Applicant’s almost 4 years of service, he received a retention warning, was found guilty of violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 128 at two NJPs, and met the requirements to be administratively separated for Misconduct (Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct). ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901643

    Original file (MD0901643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The correct annotation as recommended by the Administrative Separation Board and approved by the Separation Authority (Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force) was General (Under Honorable Conditions). After considering all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case to include the Applicant’s exemplary service record and character witness statements, the Separation Authority (Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force) directed the Applicant be discharged with a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500361

    Original file (ND1500361.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000915

    Original file (MD1000915.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Applicant was convicted in civilian court in 2008, the offense happened 18 years prior and before she enlisted in the Marine Corps. Relief granted.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 change to . Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6C (ADMINISTRATIVE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801718

    Original file (ND0801718.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on the fact the Applicant feels his actions were unintentional would be inappropriate.Issue 2: The Applicant is asking for help in locating a binder used by his defense attorney which documented the Applicant’s Naval service. It is recommended the Applicant contact his last command or his defense attorney for information on disposition of his binder.After a thorough review of the available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700612

    Original file (ND0700612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient creditable evidence to outweigh the presumption of regularity on the part of the government. Discharge Process Date Notified: NOT FOUND IN RECORDReason for Discharge:-Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401254

    Original file (MD1401254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901413

    Original file (MD0901413.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant would like his RE code upgraded so he can reenlist. While the Applicant’s request for a discharge was considered inappropriate due to the nature of his in-service conduct, the board did find an upgrade from Bad Conduct to Under Other Than Honorable Conditions to be most appropriate.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500923

    Original file (ND1500923.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Applicant was found guilty at NJP for wrongful use of marijuana, and an Administrative Separation Board determined that a preponderance of evidence proved his wrongful use of marijuana, and recommended his discharge from the Navy. 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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS...