Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002303
Original file (ND1002303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AT2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100924
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)        20010530 - 20010701     Active:   20010702 - 20051231 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20060101     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080926      Highest Rank/Rate: AT2
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 26 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 64
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 4 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.31
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NUC NAVY”E” GCM SSDR GWOTSM NDSM

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : NFIR        S CM : NONE       SPCM: NONE       C C : NONE         Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”
        
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 23, effective 12 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable as his pending civil DUI charge w as later dropped.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 01 12             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 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 identif ied one decisional issue for the Board ’s consideration . Although the Applicant’s service records are incomplete (missing administrative separation documentation to include: notification of administrative separation and acknowledgment of rights forms, commanding officer comments and endorsement, and the Separation Authority decision letter), t he Board complete d a thorough review of the available records to determine whether his 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 , commanding officer n on-judicial p unishment (NJP) , or trial by courts-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . The Applicant’s record did reveal he received a Commander, Navy Personnel Command fraudulent/erroneous enlistment waiver for failure to disclose an aggravated battery (felony) arrest from May 2001, which was in addition to other pre-service offenses he committed includ ing shoplifting, possession of marijuana, and driving with a suspended license. The record also reflected an Evaluation and Counseling Report (dated 16 Mar to 26 Sep 2008) that i ndicated the Applicant was being separated from the Navy for the commission of a serious offense. Comments within the evaluation report stated , “(the Applicant ) failed to live up to the Navy Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. Displayed poor self-control leading to disciplinary action . ” In his request for review of discharge, the Applicant references a DUI charge/arrest he received ( a charge that he states was later dropped) as the reason for his discharge from the Navy. Based on the offense(s) for which the Applicant was charged, his command administratively processed him for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation pac kage to determine whether the Applicant exercised or waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative separation board or a General Court - Martial Convening Authority review . The HKQ separation code (SPD) listed on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he waived his right to an administrative board. The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 26 Sep 2008 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was improper/inequitable as his pending civil DUI charge was later dropped. As the discharge decision is presumed, under law, to be correct, the Naval Discharge Review Board may affirm the original decision even if official records that it would normally be required to review as part of the discharge review process cannot be located. This presumption is referred to as a presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs. However, all information provided by the Applicant that might relate to the misconduct that provided for the characterization of the discharge will be considered by the Board. The Applicant may overcome the presumption of regularity by providing substantial credible evidence that the contested discharge decision was wrong of unfair . The Applicant did not submit any evidence to the Board to rebut the presumpti on of regularity in this case.

Despite a service member’s prior record of se rvice, certain serious offenses, even though isolate d, warrant separation from the N aval S ervice in order to maintain proper order and discipline ; violation of UCMJ Article 111 ( D runken driving) meets this standard . Since an administrative discharge is not punishment, the decision to administratively discharge a service member is made independently of and does not require adjudication at court-martial , nonjudicial punishment , or civil conviction . The characterization of service is a description of the total service provided during the member’s enlistment. When the service of a

member of the Naval Service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as H onorable. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) d ischarge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service contained a serious offense(s) , which is punishable by a B ad C onduct Discharge and up to 6 months of imprisonment if adjudicated at tri a l by courts-m artial. 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 his grade and length of service , and f alls short of w hat is required for an Honorable upgrade in the characterization of his service. 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, and with no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of his discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum for additional information.


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

 Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
 Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901261

    Original file (ND0901261.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: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements: From Applicant: From Representation:From Congress member: Other Documentation: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101303

    Original file (ND1101303.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends there was no basis for separation due to a pattern of misconduct. 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 Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall , but the Narrative Reason for Separation shall change to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00738

    Original file (ND04-00738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00738 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040330. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800693

    Original file (ND0800693.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s service was marred by his violation of UCMJ Article 91 and 128, which constitutes the “commission of a serious offense” discharge basis.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 the Naval Service and falls far short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801964

    Original file (ND0801964.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Veteran’s Administration (VA) considers her service honorable.2.Record of service.3. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000935

    Original file (ND1000935.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, 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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900221

    Original file (ND0900221.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade.Should the Applicant feel his post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500868

    Original file (ND0500868.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested that his characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any other evidence related to his discharge at that time. The names, and votes of the members of the 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400317

    Original file (ND1400317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation, the characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the reason 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...