Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002007
Original file (ND1002007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AT3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100812
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)        19900628 - 19910624     Active:   19910625 - 19950518 HON
                                    USN 19950519 - 19990418 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990419     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 2001032 9      Highest Rank/Rate: AT2
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 88
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NAVY”E ” (3) MUC (2) GCM (2) SSDR (2) NMCAM NDSM

Periods of UA : 2000 1 206 - 2000 1 207 ( 2 days ) ; 20001208 - 20001211 ( 4 days ) ; 20001212 - 20010227 ( 69 days )

NJP : NONE        S CM : NONE       CC:      Retention Warning Counseling : NONE
SPCM: 1
        
- 20000927: Article 134 (Did on or about 19991012 falsely state to an Assistant Principal that he was the cousin not husband, of his wife and that such conduct was a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces)
Sentence: RIR CONF 15 days (Additional findings of guilt and punishments were dismissed by GCM convening authority)
- 20010302: Convening Authority referred charges for trial by Special Court - Martial due to violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ (Absent without leave - absented himself from his unit without authority on 20001006 and did remain so absent until surrendering himself to military authority on 20020228 (69 days). Charges withdrawn pursuant to the acceptance of Applicant’s request for separation in lieu of trial by court - martial.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d an administrative error on the original DD Form 214:

          “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19910625 TO 19990418 ”
        
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 29, effective 11 July 2000 until 21 August 2002, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications .
C . 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.       The Applicant contends that under current standards , he would not have been administratively discharged and that his misconduct was only minor offenses.
 2 .       The Applicant contends his honorable service outweighs his misconduct.
3 .       The Applicant claims he was UA for 69 days , because he could not afford a plane ticket back to his duty station and that his family and financial problems mitigate the negative effects of his misconduct.
 4 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.
Decision

Date: 20 1 1 1117             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : 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 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 identif ied numerous decisional issues for the NDRB’s consideration; in addition, t he NDRB conducted 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 both equity and propriety.

The Applicant was serving on his third enlistment with the Navy, having Honorably completed two previous enlistment contract s ending on 18 April 1999 . T he Applicant re-enlisted for a six -year enlistment period , commencing on 19 April 1999 . The Applicant’s current period of service under review included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention-counsel ing warnings or non-judicial proceedings. However, the Applicant’s service record reflects conviction by Special Court - Martial on 27 September 2000 for violation of Article 134. Due to the actions of the General Court - Martial Convening Authority review, the punishment and findings were reduced to the single violation of the UCMJ stated previously, a reduction in rank from AT2 to AT3, and confinement for 15 days. The Applicant completed his confinement and returned to duty with his command. The Applicant absented himself from his unit, without authority, and remained absent for a period of 69 days, wherein he surrendered himself to military authority on 28 February 2001. On 02 March 2001, the command referred charges of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ against the Applicant for trial by S pecial C ourt -M artial. In order to avoid the punitive effects of a trial by court - martial, the Applicant submitted a request for administrative separation in lieu of trial to the Convening Authority.

The Applicant’s military record contains a copy of the separation proceedings. In order to warrant separation in lieu of trial by court - martial, the Applicant must request administrative separation - in writing - for the good of the service to escape charges that have been p referred against the A pplicant and referred to trial by a Special Court-Martial or above. Charges of violating the UCMJ were p referred against the Applicant on 02 March 2001 . The Applicant submitted his written request for separation in lieu of trial on the same day . This request for separation contained certain basic requirements - which must be satisfied - before receiving approval by the Separation Authority. In the request, the Applicant clearly affirmed that his rights were explained to him thoroughly - to include his right to consult with qualified counsel, which he waived . Furthermore, the Applicant admitted his guilt to the charges as preferred against him and further certified that he had a complete understanding of the negative consequences of his actions, the narrative reason for his separation, and the likely characterization of service upon separation - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The respondent acknowledged that if discharged with an OTH, it might deprive him of virtually all veterans benefits and that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations wherein the type of service rendered, or the character of discharge received, may have a bearing.
Issues 1 & 2 : ( Equity ) . The Applicant contends that under current standards , he would not have been administratively discharged and that his misconduct was only minor offenses. Additionally, the Applicant contends his honorable service outweighs his misconduct of record. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain offenses,

even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ, in excess of 30 days, is a serious offense, warranting adm inistrative separation regardless of grade or time in service or punitive punishment by tri a l by court - martial . This action usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge (Bad Conduct Discharge) with confinement for up to one year, if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a S pecial or G eneral C ourt- M artial. The Applicant’s service record reflects multiple violations of Article 86 of the UCMJ, to include a n extended absence in excess of 30 days from his unit . The Applicant’s command determined that t his mis conduct was detrimental to the good order and discipline of the service and brought discredit upon the service ; they f urther determined that the misconduct warranted punitive action via trial by court - martial. Fa cing the punitive actions of a S pecial C ourt -M artial, the Applicant requested administrative discharge.

Characterization of service at discharge is based on recognition of a Sailor’s performance and conduct and is not necessarily dependent upon the narrative reason for separation. When the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, however, 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. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, did reflect a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and the awarded characterization of service upon discharge was both equitable and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. The Applicant’s characterization of service at discharge was appropriate . Relief denied.

Issue 3 : ( Equity ) . The Applicant claims he was UA for 69 days , because he could not afford a plane ticket back to his duty station and that his family and financial problems mitigate the negative effects of his misconduct.
The NDRB recognizes that serving in the military is challenging. Most service members, however, serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those service members, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that each Sailor receive s no higher characterization than is due. There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any documentation, to indicate he attempted to utilize the numerous services available for service members who undergo personal problems during their enlistment such as Navy Relief Society, Family Advocacy Programs, or even the Red Cross. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s personal problems were not mitigating factors in his misconduct. Relief denied.
Issue 4 : ( Equity ) . The Applicant requested that the NDRB consider post-service conduct as a basis to gain a more thorough understanding of performance and conduct during the period of service under review. The Applicant provided documentation including college transcripts, evidence of community and church activity, as well as character reference letters and a resume. While the Applicant appears to have made considerable progress, his post-service documentation efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade as each discharge is reviewed by the NDRB on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. Due to the serious nature of the misconduct, the NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.

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 IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of her 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100247

    Original file (MD1100247.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001752

    Original file (MD1001752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, relief is denied Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim transcript record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE, andthe narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001963

    Original file (MD1001963.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that clemency was not warranted. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200355

    Original file (MD1200355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Verbatim Record of Trial by SPCM 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100708

    Original file (ND1100708.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Given the facts of the case during the second Special Court-Martial, the Judgefound the Applicant guilty of the charge as specified and adjudged confinement for a period of 6 months and to be discharged from the Naval Service with a Bad Conduct Discharge. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of clemency based on matters regarding the equity of a discharge when considering a change to a punitive Bad Conduct Discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100684

    Original file (MD1100684.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 1105, DISCHARGE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001777

    Original file (MD1001777.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101549

    Original file (MD1101549.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the violation of Article 112(a), processing for administrative separation, by service policy, was mandatory.The Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Command’s intent to process the Applicant for administrative separation for Misconduct (Drug Abuse) in accordance with paragraph 6210.5 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual (MARCORSEPMAN). On 01 March 2004, the Separation Authority approved the request that the Applicant be separated administratively with an...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001959

    Original file (MD1001959.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 1105, DISCHARGE...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101141

    Original file (MD1101141.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 Government affairs unless there is substantial...