Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001410
Original file (ND1001410.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSN, USNR
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100504
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)        20041005 - 2005040 5     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050406     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : 8 Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070720      Highest Rank/Rate: CSSN
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 14 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 54
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.5 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.09

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Period of UA/ CONF:       CONF 20061215 - 20070117 (34 days)                UA 20060721 - 20061215 (147 days)

NJP : NONE

S CM : NONE

SPCM: 1

 - 20070201 :       Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, unauthorized absence, 20060721 - 20061215, 147 days)
         Article 87 (Missing movement, through design, 20060721)
          Sentence : (85 days) Suspended: 25 days suspended for period of confinement plus 6 months
        
C C :              

Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

 Date entered AD this period, should read: “05 APR 06”
Block 12c, Net active service this period, should read: “01 Year 1 0 Months 21 Days”
 “ MISCONDUCT ”
Block 29, Dates of Time Lost During This Period, should read: “20060721-20061215 (147 days) ”
        
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 violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 ( 147 Days) and Article 87 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant seeks discharge upgrade to improve employment opportunities.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 08 11             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 did not identify any decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . However, the Board did complete 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 reflect ed one Special Court Martial for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 21 Jul - 15 Dec 2006 , 147 days , terminated in apprehension ) and Article 87 ( Missing movement , through design, 21 Jul 2006). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure on 20 Feb 2007 , the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board . On 15 Mar 2007, the Commander, Navy Personnel Command directed that the Applicant be s eparated from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense). The Applicant was subsequently administratively discharged from the N avy on 20 Jul 2007.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks discharge upgrade to improve employment 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.

 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900610

    Original file (MD0900610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, the Applicant had an additional period of UA for 38 days which was not adjudicated.The NDRB determined the Applicant’s claims of verbal abuse and harassment are not substantiated by the record of evidence and do not justify his actions of misconduct:The Applicant should understand misconduct by other service members is not a viable excuse for the Applicant’s misconduct. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001306

    Original file (ND1001306.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. ” Additional Reviews : After...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101302

    Original file (ND1101302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, Articles 87, 91, 92,and 134. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801828

    Original file (MD0801828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401178

    Original file (ND1401178.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100189

    Original file (ND1100189.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade due to her VA disability rating.2. The Applicant submitted documentation that included VA decisional documents showing she is receiving 59% disability for bi-polar disorder. ” 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801579

    Original file (ND0801579.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s command determined this was the appropriate characterization of service based on his service record. Due to the serious nature of the Applicant’s misconduct and poor judgment in communicating the true state of the situation, the NDRB 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:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801838

    Original file (ND0801838.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700465

    Original file (ND0700465.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was subsequently discharged for commission of a serious offense.After a thorough review of the records, testimony, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. After a thorough review of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800320

    Original file (MD0800320.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative...