Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100862
Original file (ND1100862.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ADAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110216
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)        20020815 - 20030804     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20030805     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050318      Highest Rank/Rate: ADAA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 14 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20050215 :      Article (Larceny and wrongful appropriation)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :   SPCM:   C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20050215 :       For violation of UCMJ, Article 121, Larceny and wrongful appropriation; violation of UCMJ, Article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation.

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 :        



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable , because her chain of command chose not to take disciplinary action.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0503             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 Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation ) and Article 121 ( Larceny and wrongful appropriation ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge is inequitable , because her chain of command chose not to take disciplinary action. The Applicant’s records revealed that she was found guilty of violation of UCMJ Articles 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 121 (Larceny and wrongful appropriation) at Captain’s Mast on 15 Feb 2005. Punishment was imposed and none of it was suspended. However, i n accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) , s ervicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. The Applicant’s service included one retention warning and one nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 121. Per the Manual for Courts-Martial, v iolations of A rticle s 92 and 121 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) (Board Issue) ( Equit y) During the NDRB’s r eview of the Applicant’s request for an upgrade, the NDRB identified an impropriety in her discharge in that she did not meet the requirement for separation according to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138 , S eparation by R eason of M isconduct - M inor D isciplinary I nfractions , dated 22 Aug 2002 to 25 April 2005. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN Article 1910-138 , “Members may be processed for separation based upon a series of at least three, but not more than eight, minor violations (specifications) of reference (a), provided a. none of the reasons could have resulted in a punitive discharge (reference (b), appendix 12 refers) , b. offenses are documented in the member’s service record , c. offenses have occurred during the current enlistment , d. member was disciplined by one nonjudicial punishment (NJP) , and e . member has violated a NAVPERS 1070/613 ; Administrative Remarks counseling/warning (MILPERSMAN 1910-204) . ” The Applicant’s documented UCMJ violations are clearly not minor infractions . The Applicant’s service included one retention warning and one nonjudicial punishment for violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 121 , which are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. Therefore the Applicant should have been separated under the authority of MILPERSMAN Article 1910-142, Separation b y Reason o f Misconduct - Commission of a Serious Offense . However, since the Applicant was not notified by her command at the time of her discharge proceedings of Article 1910-142 , it would be inappropriate for the NDRB to effect such a change. Therefore, s ince there is no other narrative reason for separation that accurately describes the reason the Applicant was separated, the NDRB determined the reason for the Applicant’s discharge shall change to Secretarial Authority.
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 but the narrative reason for separation shall change to . 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 April 2005, Article 1910-138, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - MINOR DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS.

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 .


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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501340

    Original file (ND0501340.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). After serving for 2 years, 3 months and 11 days, this Applicant was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharged and separated for misconduct authorized by MILPERSMAN 3630600. Additionally, she pled guilty to defrauding the government of over $3,000.00 through similar means for a separate travel claim last...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200573

    Original file (ND1200573.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600231

    Original file (ND0600231.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I went into the military for a change of life, venture, career help, and to send money home to my mother for watching my son. 000118: Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense.Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600770

    Original file (ND0600770.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decisional Issues: None Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960227 – 19960610 COG Active: None Period of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001196

    Original file (ND1001196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Board recommended by a vote of 3 to 0, that the Applicant receive a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of her service at discharge. The Separation Authority approved the recommendation for discharge, directing that the basis for separation be MISCONDUCT (Serious Offense) – having determined that the evidence of record supported the basis for discharge – and that the characterization of service, as recommended by the chain of command and the discharge board,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700048

    Original file (ND0700048.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NOT FOUND IN RECORDRights Elected at Notification:Consult with Counsel Obtain Copies of Documents Submit Statement(s) (date) Administrative Board GCMCA Review Commanding Officer Recommendation (date): Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL HOSPITAL JACKSONVILLE (20060227) Reason for discharge directed: - Characterization directed: GENERAL Date Applicant Discharged: 20060228 Additional Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By BoardTotal Number of Pages: 35 Related to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101314

    Original file (ND1101314.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. The NDRB determined a characterization upgrade is not warranted. ” 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800023

    Original file (ND0800023.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After assuring compliance with MILPERSMAN 1910-140 the separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct with an overall service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). ” 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. If a former member has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

    Original file (ND1200804.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200238

    Original file (ND1200238.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/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Relief denied.Issue 4:...