Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001708
Original file (ND1001708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-GSMFN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100624
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)        20010629 - 20010827     Active:   20010828 - 20050824 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050825     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20070524      Highest Rank/Rate: GSM3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 44
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.75

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      CGSOR L o C

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:
- 20060927 :       Article (Drugs )
                  Awarded : RIR(to E-3) Susp ended:

SCM:     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:

         Remarks, should read: “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 20010828 to 20050824 ”
        
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 . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 29 April 2005 until
1 June 2008, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

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 her discharge was inequitable based on Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) recommendation for retention and an Honorable discharge.
2.       Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because her misconduct was an isolated incident and she was allowed to continue working for 8 months before discharge.
 3.       Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for upgrade.
Decision

Date: 20 1 1 08 25             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 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 t hree decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . Though the Applicant’s service records were incomplete, the Board complete d 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 did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings, but did reflect one for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Wrongful use, possession, etc of a controlled substance, specifics NFIR ) . The records also revealed the Applicant had admitted to using marijuana 5 times prior to enlisting in the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory per the Naval Military Personnel Manual . 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 coun sel, submit a written statement , and request a n administrative separation board . The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 24 May 2007 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable based on a Disciplinary Review Board recommendation for retention and an Honorable discharge. Since the Applicant’s service records were incomplete, the NDRB was unable to review the administrative separation documents that would include the administrative separation package command endorsement a nd the separation authority’s decision letter. However, the separation code of GKK listed in B lock 26 of the Applicant’s DD-214 indicates the Applicant was granted an administrative separation board proceeding. Normally, violation of UCMJ Article 112a results in either trial by courts-martial (which could result in up to two years confinement and a B ad C onduct or D ishonorable D ischarge) or an administrative discha rge with a characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions . The Applicant, after receiving an administrative board, was separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. Whether a D isciplinary R eview B oard was conducted is irrelevant to the Applicant’s issue since DRB proceedings and results reside solely within a respective local command in order to make internal disciplinary recommendations to the XO and CO regarding enlisted personnel matters. DRB results have no bearing on final retention or characterization of service decisions. Accordingly, after thorough review and deliberation, the Board determined this issue did not provide a basis in which relief could be granted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge was inequitable because her misconduct was an isolated incident and she was allowed to continue working for 8 months before discharge. Despite a service member’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the N aval S er vice in order to maintain good order and discipline ; violation of Article 112a meets this standard . In addition to her admission of prior illegal marijuana use before entering the Navy, t he Applicant signed the US N Drug Policy on 29 May 2001 and also attended Prevent drug and alcohol awareness training on 24 Oct 2002. Sh e was fully aware there is a zero - tolerance policy for drug abuse , and s he acknowledged the consequences. T he record clearly reflects h er willful misconduct and

demonstrated s he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for h er conduct or sh e should not be held accountable for h er actions. When a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under H onorable conditions. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted if a member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record . 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 considering her grade and length of service , and f alls short of w hat is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for upgrade. The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant ’ s character or an aberration. However, there is no law or regulation that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. 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 . The A pplicant provided college transcripts, two employer letters of reference, one letter of reference, and a personal letter to the NDRB. Though the Applicant’s efforts to improve her life are commendable, t he Applicant ’ s efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the understanding c ompletion 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. After careful review, the Board determined the awarded characterization of service shall remain General ( Under Honorable Conditions). Relief denied.

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, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201592

    Original file (MD1201592.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The Applicant wants her discharge upgraded so she can reenlist in the military. ” 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100740

    Original file (ND1100740.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for service benefits. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101586

    Original file (MD1101586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Applicant’s official service record, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the characterization of her service, documented conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. Summary : After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400768

    Original file (ND1400768.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101210

    Original file (ND1101210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities. If members of her administrative separation board told her she would receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, they did not have the authority to say this. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301239

    Original file (ND1301239.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201023

    Original file (ND1201023.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002107

    Original file (MD1002107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Decisional issues:The Applicant and her counsel contend the following issues resulted in an improper discharge and an inequitable discharge characterization of service: (1) the Applicant should have been medically discharged with disability; (2) the Applicant’s new chain of command refused medical care and broke all contact with the medical staff; (3) the chain of command...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201260

    Original file (ND1201260.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20010127 - 20010828Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20010829Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20010920Highest Rank/Rate: SNLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 23 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 32EvaluationMarks:Performance:N/ABehavior:N/AOTA: N/AAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801788

    Original file (ND0801788.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of...