Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100225
Original file (ND1100225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
ex-AKAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101102
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)        19900329 - 19900801     Active:   19900802 - 19940407 ( HON )

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Re-e nlistment: 19940408          Age at re-e nlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19951106      Highest Rank/Rate: AK3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 29 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 67
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: 3.8 Average in service

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2 nd Award) , , , , , (3) , JMUC

Period of UA :

NJP :     S CM :             CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:

- 19941006 :       Art icle 81 (Conspiracy with another to commit an offense under A rticle 123, to wit, forge a signature upon two government check s in the amount of $1,485.44 and $373.00 )
         Art icle 121 (St ole two government check s in the amount s of $1,485.44 and $373.00 , the property of another Sailor )
         Sentence Adjudged : Reprimand, BCD, , , 4 months confinement (941006-941227)
          Convening Authority Action : (04 Jan 1995) - Only so much of the sentence as provides for forfeitures of pay for 4 months, reduction in rate to E-1, confinement for 4 months, and Bad Conduct D ischarge from the Naval Service is approved, and, except for the Bad Conduct D ischarge, is ordered executed. That part of the sentence extending to confinement in excess for 3 months is suspended.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:
“ COURT-MARTIAL ”
         “ 94OCT06-9 4 DEC27 ”
        
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:   
                                             Verbatim Record of Trial by CM
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 5, effective 5 March 1993 until 2 October 1996, Article 3640420, DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL ADJUDGED BY SENTENCE OF 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)(a), 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 503, Equity .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 Decisional issues : (1) The Applicant seeks clemency, contending that the discharge was inequitable given the delay in trial of approximately two years between being charged and the trial in which time he clearly demonstrated his rehabilitative potential and overall honorable service in mitigation of the actual misconduct. (2) The Applicant contends that clemency is warranted by his full cooperation with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and his acceptance of his wrongdoing and pleading of guilty. (3) Furthermore, the Applicant contends that his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration to show that his misconduct was an aberration in his overall character.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 032 8            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 Government affairs unless there is substantial, credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, 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. In response to the Applicant ’ s clemency request, relevant and material facts, as stated in a court-martial, are presumed by the NDRB, to be established facts. As such, the Applicant ’ s case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency.

The Applicant’s service record indicates he entered military service at age 18 on a four-year enlistment contract under a guarantee for training in the Aviation Apprenticeship program . The Applicant’s enlistment record reflects entry into military service with out any waiver s to enlistment and induction standards . The highest rank achieved by the Applicant during his enlistment was E-4/Aviation Storekeeper, Third Class Petty Officer . The Applicant completed his first enlistment period Honorably, executing an immediate reenlistment for a second four years of obligated service. During this second enlistment period, t he Applicant’s record of service documents one S pecial C ourt- M artial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 81 (Conspiracy - to forge government checks) and Article 1 21 ( Larceny) .

The Applicant ’s service record documents a punitive conviction and punishment, as adjudged by a S pecial C ourt -M artial, on 06 October 1994 . A qualified legal defense counsel represented the Applicant throughout the trial by Special Court-Martial process. Given the facts of the case, the Special Court - Martial awarded the Applicant a Bad Conduct Discharge and confinement for a period of 4 months. The Applicant had a Pre-Trial Agreement in place: H e agreed to plead guilty before a Military Judge alone in exchange for a limitation on any adjudged confinement and forfeitures. The case was submitted for review to the U.S. Navy - Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals without assignments of error; it was reviewed and the findings were affirmed. Subsequently, the Navy Marine Corps Appellate Leave Activity ordered the Bad Conduct Discharge executed. The Applicant’s final Bad Conduct Discharge was executed on 06 November 1995 .

Besides his DD Form 293, the Applicant provided four character reference letters attesting to his community service f or consideration by the NDRB.

Decisional Issue s (Clemency/Equity) P ARTIAL CLEMENCY WARRANTED. (1) The Applicant contend s that given the delay in trial of approximately two years between being charged and the trial occurring , he clearly demonstrated his rehabilitative potential and overall honorable service in mitigation of the actual misconduct. (2) The Applicant contends that clemency is warranted by his full cooperation with NCIS and his acceptance of his wrongdoing and pleading of guilty. (3) Furthermore, the Applicant contends that his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration to show that his misconduct was an aberra tion in his overall character.
Propriety - In response to the Applicant ’ s clemency request, relevant and material facts as stated in a court-martial, are presumed by the NDRB, to be established facts; matters of propriety are decided and upheld through the appellant’s right to legal review process - t he Navy and Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. As such, mat t ers of propriety are not within t he authority of the NDRB in relation to punishment as adjudged in a punitive trial by court - martial. The NDRB , however, did conduct a thorough review of the Applicant’s discharge under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited clemency. The Applicant’s service record documents a prior period of honorable service with a reenlistment; however, the misconduct of record occurred in his original enlistment period but was not adjudicated until hi s current enlistment period.

Equity Issue s 1 and 2 - The Applicant contend s that the discharge was inequitable given the delay in trial of approximately two years between being charged and the trial occurring , during which he clearly demonstrated his rehabilitative potential and overall honorable service in mitigation of the actual misconduct. T he Applicant also contends that clemency is warranted by his full cooperation with NCIS and his acceptance of his wrongdoing and pleading of guilty. The Applicant was referred to trial by court-martial for the theft of two government checks from a S ailor he was escorting during that S ailor ’ s final discharge process. The Applicant then conspired with another Sailor to forge those two checks and cash them for their personal benefit and at the cost of the separating Sailor. The Applicant agreed to cooperate with the NCIS investigation and pled guilty at court martial . The military judge found the Applicant guilty of the offense as charged and awarded him the Bad Conduct Discharge , reduction to E-1 , and to be confined for a period of 4 months. In accordance with the Pre-Trial Agreement, all confinement in excess of 3 months was suspended and rem itted without further action. The NDRB reviewed all of the available records, supporting documents, facts, elements of discharge, and circumstances unique to this case. Given the unique circumstances of the case, coupled with the nature of the misconduct and the Applicant ’ s post service conduct , the NDRB determined that the punishment was overly harsh and was not equitable , nor consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. As such, the NDRB determined that some form of relief was warranted. Partial clemency granted.

Equity Issue 3 - The Applicant contends that his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration in showing that his misconduct was an aberration in his overall character. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided four letters of reference and documentation regarding his community service. The Applicant should be aware submission of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed , by the NDRB , on a case-by-case basis. The Applicant seeks a change in the characterization of his service at discharge to Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. C haracterization of service at discharge is recognition of the quality of a Sailor’s performance and conduct ; it cannot be underestimated , as characterization of service serves as a goal for each Sailor and as a meaningful endorsement of their service to potential employers. Most Sailors serve honorably; in fairness to them , commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that service members receive no higher characterization than is due. An Honorable characterization of service is the highest quality of characterization and is appropriate when the quality of a Sailor ’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel , or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization of service would be clearly inappropriate. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of the member’s service record. However, 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. A fter reviewing the Applicant’s issue s , the supporting documentation, and the evidence of record contained in the verbatim record of trial, the NDRB discerned an inequity in the characterization of service and determined that some form of clemency was warranted . As such, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s misconduct of record was conduct involving one or more acts or omission s that did constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service. As such, by a vote of 3-2 , the NDRB determined that the characterization of service shall change to Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Partial clemency granted. Full relief to Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions) was not granted due to the seriousness of the misconduct.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim record of trial by Special Court-Martial, and the discharge process, the NDRB found that some form of clemency was warranted. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS, however, the narrative reason for separation shall remain COURT MARTIAL. As the Applicant has now exceeded the 15 -year review period authorized for the NDRB review process, he is no longer eligible for review by the NDRB. The Applicant must petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490, for any further review using a DD Form 149. Further information is also available online at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm .

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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500464

    Original file (ND1500464.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001946

    Original file (MD1001946.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant did not provide sufficient post-service documentary evidence to form a basis of relief. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, the verbatim record of trial, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401612

    Original file (ND1401612.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. However, based on the repeal of DADT, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall change to SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900622

    Original file (ND0900622.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition to requesting an upgrade in the characterization of service, the Applicant is seeking a change in the narrative reason for reentry into the military. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service, UCMJ violations involved, and lack of post service documentation.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200111

    Original file (ND1200111.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant requests that his monetary recoupment for his Naval Academy education be waived or mitigated.2. After a review of the Applicant’s service, cooperation with NCIS, misconduct that he admitted to, and recommendations from the chain of command, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) assigned a General (Under Honorable Conditions)...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00660

    Original file (MD04-00660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Pvt H_ (Applicant) was not unfairly given a Bad Conduct Discharge for this charge. Mr. H_ (Applicant) understands that he will never be able to make up for his lost time in the Marine Corps, however now its time we focus on the future. [Microfiche unreadable]980718: GCMCA [Commander, Marine Corps Base Hawaii] directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.980813: Special Court-Martial.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902147

    Original file (ND0902147.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801458

    Original file (MD0801458.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Urinalysis was Command Directed, therefore not allowed to be used in characterization of discharge or for punishment. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 to request these changes.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service,

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201327

    Original file (ND1201327.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable, because he cooperated with NCIS and his prior record of service was outstanding. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900095

    Original file (ND0900095.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19930812 - 19940626Active: 19940627 – 19960627 USN 19960628 - 20020627 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20020628Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment:NFIRDate of Discharge:20071015Highest Rank/Rate:MM1Length of Service: 13 Years Months20 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: NFIREvaluationMarks:Performance:3.8(5)Behavior:3.6(5)OTA: 3.86Awards and...