Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100227
Original file (ND1100227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AN, 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:       Under Honorable C onditions RE-1

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20050406 - 20050809     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20050810     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20051019      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 10 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 36
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: N/A          Behavior: N/A    OTA: N/A
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :     S CM :    SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL ”
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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 3 May 2005 until 16 May 2008,
Article 1910-134, Separation by Reason of Defective Enlistments and Inductions - Fraudulent Entry Into the Naval Service.

 B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends his discharge was improper , because there were very small errors in his record that could have been fixed.
 2.       The Applicant wants another opportunity to enlist in the military.
 3 .       The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action.
 4 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his earning a bachelor’s degree and his graduate school attendance is worthy of an upgrade to Honorable.
5.       The Applicant states that he did not understand the terms of his contract and that his discharge should not be held against him due to his learning disability .
Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0214             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, non-judicial punishments, or trials by court-martial for violation s of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Applicant was diagnosed with paranoid d e lusional disorder and personality disorder with severe borderline and antisocial behavior patterns. Based on th ese diagnoses and the recommendation of a qualified medical officer, his command administratively processed him for separation . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant contends his discharge was improper , because there were very small errors in his record that could have been fixed. The Applicant did not specify the errors he refers to, and the NDRB could not find any errors in the Applicant’s service record. Therefore, t his issue do es not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to the propriety and equity of the discharge . Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to a former service member’s service record.

: (Non-decisional) The Applicant wants another opportunity to enlist in the military. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable Reentry (RE) code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter. Additionally, the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces and is not authorized to change an RE code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can make changes to RE codes.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was inequitable , because it was based on an isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action. The Applicant had only 2 months and 10 days of service , not 28 months , therefore, rendering him in an entry-level status (within the first 180 days of enlistment) at the time of his discharge. Regulations direct that the Character of Service for members notified of intended recommendation for discharge while in an entry-level status be Uncharacterized except in circumstances where service has been so meritorious that an Honorable is clearly warranted. In cases of misconduct, a less favorable characterization of service, such as General (Under Honorable Conditions), may be assigned following different separation procedures. The Applicant’s record showed no meritorious service that would warrant an Honorable characterization of service, and no misconduct that would warrant a General (Under Honorable Conditions). Relief denied.

Issue 4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct, as evidenced by his earning a bachelor ’s degree and his graduate school attendance is worthy of an upgrade to Honorable. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded or changed based solely on good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. However, in this case, the Applicant was in an entry-level status (within the first 180 days of enlistment). Regulations direct that the Character of Service for members notified of intended recommendation for discharge while in an entry-level status be Uncharacterized except in circumstances where service has been so meritorious that an Honorable is clearly warranted. The Applicant’s record showed no meritorious service that would warrant an Honorable characterization of service. The NDRB determined that considering post-service conduct was not applicable in this case and changing the characterization of service would be against regulations. Relief denied.

Issue 5: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant indicates that he did not understand the terms of his contract and that his discharge should not be held against him due to his learning disability. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention that he h as a learning disability and that it impaired his ability to understand the terms of his contract. Documentation found in the Applicant’s service record indicates the medical officer could not determine if the Applicant is “cognitively challenged, or faking . ” The Applicant’s statement, without substantial and credible evidence, claiming that he has a learning disability does not overcome the presumption of regularity in this case. The NDRB determined that relief based on this issue is not warranted. 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 . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum 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 | 2011_Navy | ND1101207

    Original file (ND1101207.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I point all the blame on myself and take it in step.” The NDRB infers that the chance he seeks is to reenlist in the military.The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. The NDRB determined the discharge was proper and equitable.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400912

    Original file (ND1400912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants to improve employment opportunities and to reenlist.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200331

    Original file (ND1200331.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. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001130

    Original file (ND1001130.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001632

    Original file (ND1001632.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101927

    Original file (MD1101927.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200532

    Original file (ND1200532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000263

    Original file (ND1000263.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Separation Authority reviewed the recommendation for propriety and equity and determined that separation was warranted. When requesting a change, the Applicant should provide as much documentation regarding his issue as possible. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000051

    Original file (MD1000051.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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1002213

    Original file (MD1002213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...