Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100826
Original file (ND1100826.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110209
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)        19940715 - 19941204     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19941205     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 19990629      Highest Rank/Rate: HM3
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 25 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 73
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.29

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GCM

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : 1
- 19950504 :      Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward petty officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order by commanding officer)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:

S CM : 1
- 19990430 :       Art icle 86 (Absence without leave)
         Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Sentence : RIR (to E-2) FOP

SPCM: NONE                C C : NONE                   Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB note d a dministrative error s on the original DD Form 214:
         Block 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank , s hould read: “ HA ”
          Block 4b, Pay Grade, should read: “E2”
          Block 13 , Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded , should read: “NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL FLAG LETTER OF COMMENDATION (3) ”
         “ MILPERSMAN 1910-142 [COMMISSION OF A 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 18, effective 12 December 1997 until 29 March 2000, 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 91 and 92.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education benefits.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 04 19             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 did not identify any decisional issues for the Board ’s consideration . However, the Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to his discharge and the discharge process to ensure his discharge met the pertinent sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer , willfully disobeyed a petty officer, during April 1995 ) and Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation , an order from the commanding officer , during April 1995 ) . The record also reflected one S ummary C ourt- M artial f or violations of the UCMJ: A rticle 86 (Absence without leave) , Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer ) , and Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) . The Applicant’s service records contained an Evaluation and Counseling Report ( dated 5 Dec 1997-15 Jun 1998) , which stated , “Member, a t times, used knowledge and experience to accomplish Command Mission to transport medevac patients. During this period, member received Page 13 and numerous counselings for unauthorized absences. Member received counseling for unauthorized off-duty employment and inappropriate medical decision making, leaving a patient at Andrews Air Base Terminal. ” Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant (as evidenced by his NJP and Summary Court - Martial findings of guilt for multiple violations of UCMJ Articles 91 and 92, ea ch considered a serious offense ) , his command administratively processed him for administrative separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the notification procedure on 24 May 1999 , the Applicant waived his rights to submit a written statement and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 29 Jun 1999 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education 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. Additionally, t he NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities as r egulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.
Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and the administrative separation 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 | 2009_Navy | ND0900581

    Original file (ND0900581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge was appropriate and 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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400087

    Original file (ND1400087.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Navy.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001872

    Original file (ND1001872.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201678

    Original file (ND1201678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901288

    Original file (ND0901288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-ETSR, USN Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request Application Received: 20090409 Characterization of Service Received: Narrative Reason for Discharge: (SERIOUS OFFENSE) Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20050126 - 20050608 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20050609 Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Extension Date of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900013

    Original file (MD0900013.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - 20050427:ForNJP from violation of UCMJ Article (s) 86 and 91.- 20060320:Forcivilian conviction on 20060309.- 20060712: For pending administrative separation due to civil conviction on 20060309.NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20080509 NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: MD08-00454 NDRB Documentary Review Findings: No change warranted Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900381

    Original file (ND0900381.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401044

    Original file (MD1401044.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 November 2012, an Administrative Separation Board determined that a preponderance of evidence proved the Applicant’s misconduct, and recommended by 3-0 vote that the Applicant be administratively separated from the Marine Corps with Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700346

    Original file (ND0700346.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that an upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate and also determined that the narrative reason was appropriate.In reviewing discharges, the Board 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902227

    Original file (MD0902227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant believes his discharge characterization was too harsh and he was treated unfairly by his command. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s alcohol did not serve as mitigation to the numerous infractions within his record.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process,...