Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002148
Original file (ND1002148.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABFAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100827
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 [COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE]

 Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:      

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19941221 - 19950103     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19950104     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19960531      Highest Rank/Rate: ABFAA
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 28 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 57
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR        Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM

Periods of UA :

NJP : 1

- 19960202 :      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer, disrespectful in language toward a petty officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation , entered the department head passageway and the CPOIC ’ s office without an escort)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:

S CM : 1

- 19951008 :       Art icle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation , wrongful consumption of alcohol, 2 spec ifications )
         Article 134 ( General article, 4 spec ifications)
         Spec ifications 1 and 2: Communicating a threat
         Spec ificati ons 3 and 4: Drunk and disorderly
         Sentence : FOP CONF 30 days (19951024-NFIR)

SPCM: NONE       C C : NONE                   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:

         “ ABFAR ”
         “ E1 ”

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 9, effective 22 July 1994 until 2 October 1996, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 s 91, 92, and 134.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he was young, frustrated, and suffering from depression , which were mitigating factors in his misconduct.
2.       The Applicant contends that his direct supervisor prevented him from a new assignment , which would have allowed him to succeed in the Navy.
Decision

Date : 20 1 1 1208             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : NONE

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .
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’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer, disrespectful in language toward a petty officer) and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, entered the department head passageway and the CPOIC’s office without an escort) and one summary court-martial for violations of the UCMJ: Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, wrongful consumption of alcohol, 2 spec ifications ) and Article 134 (General A rticle, 4 spec ifications ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant exercised his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board . The a dministrative board voted 3-0 that the evidence supported commission of a serious offen s e and 3-0 to separate with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was young, frustrated, and suffering from depression. The Applicant’s medical records show he was diagnosed with depression and anti-social personality disorder. The record also shows the Applicant was given several opportunities to correct himself and to be successful in the Navy. There is no evidence the Applicant’s mental state or condition was so severe as to render him incapable of abiding by Navy rules and regulations. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP and summary court-marti al of several serious offenses that alone would have warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization. Due to the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct, an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his direct supervisor prevented him from a new assignment , which would have allowed him to succeed in the Navy. The record contains no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention. The Applicant provided no evidence or documentation to support this issue or to overcome the NDRB’s presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. The Applicant’s misconduct clearly warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries, and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT .


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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900888

    Original file (ND0900888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Based on an isolated incident in 37 months of service. discharge. ” 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800695

    Original file (ND0800695.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Board determined an upgrade or change 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800687

    Original file (ND0800687.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade or change 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 that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801578

    Original file (ND0801578.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion 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 to determine if post-service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided no statements on the DD Form-293. The Board determined based on the lack of post service documentation provided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100080

    Original file (ND1100080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends medical issues contributed to his misconduct.2. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800896

    Original file (ND0800896.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharge.The Board determined based on 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801425

    Original file (ND0801425.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, it was the Applicant’s in-service performance and conduct that resulted in his discharge. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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 his opportunities before the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100610

    Original file (ND1100610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to qualify for the G. I. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801424

    Original file (ND0801424.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharge.At this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to review in considering an upgrade and therefore relief is denied.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801752

    Original file (ND0801752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 discharge.Although the Applicant states he has matured and changed, he did notprovide a personal statement, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements to support his request...