Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100337
Original file (ND1100337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MN2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20101118
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)        19970606 - 19970806     Active:   19970807 - 20020926 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020927     Age at Enlistment: 23
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061227      Highest Rank/Rate: TM2
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 01 D a y
Education Level:        AFQT: 48
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.14 ( 7 )     Behavior: 3. 0 0 ( 5 )       OTA: 3.72

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GWOTSM SSDR (2) OSR (3) GCM

Periods of C ONF :

NJP : 2
- 20060816 :      Article 86 ( Absence without leave)
         Awarded: RIR FOP RESTR EPD Suspended: RIR FOP

- 20061128 :      Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: Failed to ensure proper maintenance, calibration , and inventory of assigned equipment
         Specification 2: Failed to f ollow procedural requirements provided by the Mine Production Officer
         Specification 3: Failed to follow procedural requirements provided by the Mine Production Officer
         Article 107 (False official statement)
         Awarded : RIR Susp ended:

S CM : NONE       SPCM: NONE       C C : NONE

Retention Warning Counseling : 1
- 20030516 :       For failure to meet physical readiness standards

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative errors on the original DD Form 214:

          “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19970807 UNTIL 20020926 ”
         “ GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) ”
         “ 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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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, Article s 92 and 107.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant wants to re-enlist in the Armed Forces.
2 .        The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident .
3 .       The Applicant contends that his false official statement was a misunderstanding between his commanding officer and himself.
 4 .        The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0206             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 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 N AVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning ; and two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave) , Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 3 specifications [ Specification 1: Failed to ensure proper maintenance, calibration and inventory of assigned equipment ], [   Specification 2: Failed to Follow procedural requirements provided by the Mine Production Officer ], and [ Specification 3: Failed to follow procedural requirements provided by the Mine Production Officer ]) , and Article 107 (False official statement) . The Applicant did not require a pre-service waiver for illegal drug use prior to entering the Navy. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel, and submit a written statement. The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative board.

Issue 1: (Nondecisional) The Applicant would like to re-enlist in the Armed Forces. 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident in 9 years of service . Regardless of previous performance, time in service, or rate, c ertain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article s 92 and 107 are offense s that warrant processing for administrative separation regardless of grade or time in service. This usually results in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Articles 92 and 107 at NJP. However, his command did not pursue a punitive di scharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his false official statement was a misunderstanding between his commanding officer and himself. The record contained no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention. The Applicant submitted no documentation or evidence to support his issue or to overcome the NDRB’s presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. In the absence of substantial and credible evidence, the NDRB determined an upgrade for this issue would be inappropriate. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant requested 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 submitted documentation substantiating completion of a law enforcement training program. The Applicant ’ s 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 from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post - service conduct establishes a reason to change the characterization or narrative reason. Due to the limited documentation provided to support a post-service conduct review, 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 . 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, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews, Automatic Upgrades, 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501068

    Original file (ND1501068.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801012

    Original file (ND0801012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Issue 3: (Decisional) ().The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded based on his record of service, which was good apart from a single period of misconduct. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401034

    Original file (ND1401034.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant wants an upgrade of his discharge to improve employment opportunities.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101206

    Original file (ND1101206.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met.The Applicant’s record of service included for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Article(,, 0730 - 0815, 10 October 2008), Article (,, wrongfully using government credit card to obtain cash and merchandise), and Article (Wrongful appropriation, , steal money from property of Bank of America in the amount...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301334

    Original file (ND1301334.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When notified of administrative discharge processing, he elected to appear before an administrative separation board, which found that the preponderance of the evidence supported misconduct but recommended retention. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100574

    Original file (MD1100574.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant was notified - in writing - of the Command’s intent to process him for administrative separation due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse) in accordance with paragraph 6210.5 of the MARCORSEPMAN - with a recommendation for characterization of service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, service record entries, and the discharge process, the NDRB determined that Therefore, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301236

    Original file (ND1301236.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 is not eligible for further reviews from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801355

    Original file (MD0801355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate at this time.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, 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 document requirements of DoD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700005

    Original file (ND0700005.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable. Recommendation on Separation: By a Recommendation on Characterization: By a Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): Separation Authority (date):COMMANDING OFFICER, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69) (19961004)Reason for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001826

    Original file (MD1001826.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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 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...