Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001656
Original file (ND1001656.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100622
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)        20010822 - 20010829     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 200108 3 0     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030717      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 31
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Period of UA : 20020422 - 20030616 (420 days)

NJP :
- 20030709 :       Article (Unauthorized absence 20020422 - 20030616 , 420 days )
         Article (Wrongful use , possession, etc of a controlled substance - marijuana ( N aval D rug L ab m sg) )
         Awarded : RIR E-2 Susp ended:

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:
Block 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank, should read “SA”
Block 4.b, Pay Grade, should read “E2”
Block 12h, Effective Date of Pay Grade, should read “ 03 JUL 09”
 “ (420) 02APR22-03JUN16 ”
        
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 :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       Nondecisional issues: The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to facilitate reenlistment in the Armed Forces.

2.       Decisional issues : The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge, contending that his misconduct was mitigated by his youth and immaturity and was a lapse in judgment.

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 1020             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 . A dditionally, the NDRB completed a thorough review of the circumstances leading to the discharge, and the discharge process, to ensure the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety.

 The Applicant enlisted in the United States Navy at age 20 for a four year enlistment with no extension. The Applicant completed two years and 8 months of his four-year contractual obligation , before being discharged for misconduct. During the Applicant ’ s period of service, he received one nonjudicial punishment for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Applicant ’ s violations of the UCMJ include violation of Article 86 (Absent without leave - absented himself from his unit, without proper authority, and di d remain so absent for 420 days) and Article 112(a) ( W rongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance - marijuana - as confirmed by N aval D rug L ab testing message). Violation of Article 112(a), by service policy, mandates processing for administrative separation. Due to the nature of the misconduct of record, an extensive period of unauthorized absence coupled with the illegal drug use, the Applicant was notified that he was being processed for discharge in accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) for Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense (Article 1910-142) and Misconduct - Drug Abuse (Article 1910-146) . The NDRB review ed the Applicant’s notification of discharge action and election of rights : T he Applicant was notified of separation for the above reasons and was further advised that the least favorable characterization of service the Applicant could receive was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and that is what the command was recommending. The Applicant elected to wave his right to consult with qualified legal counsel, waived his right to an administrative hearing board, and waived his right to submit a statement to the Separation Authority. On 15 July 2003 , the Separation Authority reviewed the chain of command’s recommendation for separation and determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported separation pursuant to Article 1910-142 (Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense) and Article 1910-146 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse) . The Separation Authority directed that the Applicant receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service based on the nature of the misconduct and the type of discharge and that he be assigned a re-entry code of RE-4 (not recommended for reenlistment). The Separation Authority directed that Misconduct (Serious Offense) be the primary reason for separation; as such, t he Applicant was discharged on 17 July 2003 with a narrative reason for separation of MISCONDUCT .

 Nondecisional Issues. The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge in order to facilitate his reenlistment in the Armed Forces. The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the armed forces, and furthermore, is not authorized to change a reentry code. Regulations specifically limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of a discharge. A request for a waiver may be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter; neither a less than fully honorable discharge, nor an unfavorable "RE" code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.


(Decisional Issues) ( ) . The Applicant seeks an upgrade in the characterization of his service at discharge, contending that his misconduct was mitigated by his youth and immaturit y and was a lapse in judgment.

Propriety - 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. In accordance with Article 1910-142 of the MILPERSMAN, service members may be separated for misconduct due to the commission of a serious military offense when the Commanding Officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense(s) would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court - martial. The Applicant’s violation of Articles 8 6 and 112(a) of the UCMJ each warrant punitive discharge (Bad Conduct Discharge/Dishonorable Discharge) and a maximum confinement of up to two years, if adjudged at trial by a special or general court - martial. Moreover, despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. The Separation Authority reviewed the Command’s recommendation for separation and determined that a preponderance of the evidence did support a determination that the Applicant had engaged in the misconduct specified and did establish the minimum requirement for discharge based on Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense and Drug Abuse ). The Separation Authority determined that separation in the Applicant’s case was proper and further, that the proposed characterization of service was warranted. Based on a review of the evidence of record and documentation provided by the Applicant, the NDRB determined that there was no impropriety because of an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion with the discharge and that a change based on propriety is not warranted. As such, relief based on propriety is denied.

Equity - The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable , that his misconduct was mitigated by his youth and immaturity and was a lapse in judgment. While the Applicant may feel his youth, immaturity, and emotional and mental issues were the underlying cause of his misconduct (UA due to death of g randmother) , he provided no documentation in support of this claim. The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, but most still manage to serve honorably. While we understand some members may be less mature than others and some may experience emotional difficulties, the NDRB does not view a member’s claims of immaturity, emotional issues , or mental issues to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct without a valid medical diagnosis defining the underlying condition and its relation to his misconduct. The Applicant went UA due to the death of his grandmother; however, he remained UA for 420 days and used illegal drugs in the process.

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 n 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 Naval Service. Based on the seriousness of the offense s , the Applicant’s length of service, and his documented in-service performance and conduct, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s service was characterized by one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. The NDRB determined that the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable and that his separation from the Naval Service was consistent with others in similar circumstances . 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 NDRB found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain 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 .

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, 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 (in excess of 30 days) and Article 112(a).


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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700548

    Original file (ND0700548.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    An upgrade of characterization of service is not warranted. 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 found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20030630 - 20030728Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030729Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060505Length of Service: 02...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100232

    Original file (ND1100232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800573

    Original file (ND0800573.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20040722 - 20040729 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040730Period of enlistment:4 YearsDate of Discharge:20051110Length of Service: Yrs Mths10 DysEducation Level: 12Age at Enlistment:AFQT: 82Highest Rank/Rate:AZANEvaluation marks:Performance: 4.0 (3) Behavior:2.0 (3)OTA: 2.94 (3)Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):,,,and NJP:20050907: Violation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001199

    Original file (ND1001199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in reviewing the Applicant’s issue, 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’s enlistment record reflects his entry into military service with a waiver to enlistment standards for pre-service drug use (marijuana) confirmed by a positive urinalysis test result at the Military Processing Center while in the Delayed...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000190

    Original file (ND1000190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Of particular note, the Applicant was advised he was being processed for administrative separation on 11 Dec 2008 via NAVPERS Form 1910/31, which stated he was being processed for separation from the naval service for Pattern of Misconduct and Commission of a Serious Offense and that the least favorable characterization of service possible was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200813

    Original file (ND1200813.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant’s violation of UCMJ Article 92, 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 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 | ND0902213

    Original file (ND0902213.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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500861

    Original file (ND0500861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 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 92, failure to obey an order/regulation, Article 92, willful dereliction of duty, Article 112, drunk on duty or Article 128, assault. The names, and votes of the members...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001167

    Original file (ND1001167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 04 May 2006, the Applicant was discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization and was further advised that he was not recommended for reenlistment or reentry. Summary : After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain (AWOL). ” Additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801428

    Original file (ND0801428.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s records should be retained there for at least two years following discharge.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...