Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100904
Original file (ND1100904.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110223
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)        20000412         Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000413     Age at Enlistment: 20
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020625      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service: Y ear M onths 14 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 75
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      SSDR AFEM

Period of C ONF :

NJP : 4

- 20020215 :      Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA, 20020103 - 20020122, 20 days)
         Awarded : FOP RESTR EPD Suspended:

- 20020227 :      Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA from restricted muster, 10 specifications)
         Awarded : FOP BW 3 days Susp ended:

- 20020415:      Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA, 5 specifications)
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 107 (False official statement to a commander)
         Awarded: FOP RESTR Suspended: NONE

 - 20020502       Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA from restricted muster, 2 specifications)
         Awarded: FOP BW 3 days
S CM : 1

- 20011116 :       Art icle 86 (Absence without leave, 5 specifications )
         Specifications 1 and 2: UA, restricted muster
         Specification 3: UA, 20010929 - 2 0 011105, 38 days
         Specification 4: UA, 20010925 - 20010928, 4 days
         Specification 5: UA, 20010916 - 20010924, 9 days
          Sentence : RIR FOP CONF 24 days BW 3 days

SPCM: NONE                C C : NONE


Retention Warning Counseling : 2

- 20020220 :       For UA from 20020103 - 20020122

- 20020523 :       For UA from restricted muster

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ MISCONDUCT ”
         “ 20010929 - 2 0 011105 ( 38 ), 20010925 - 20010928 ( 4 ), 20010916 - 20010924 ( 9 ), 20020103 - 20020122 (20) ”

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 31, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002, 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 86 (greater than 30 days), 92, and 107.



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant contends he was the subject of hazing , which mitigates his misconduct.
Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0320             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’s record of service included two NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings , four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, UA, 19 specifications), Articl e 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) , and Article 107 (False official statement to a commander) , and one summary court-martial for violation of the UCMJ: Article 86 (Absence without leave, 5 specifications : Specifications 1 and 2: UA, restricted muster , Specification 3: UA, 20010929 - 22011105, 38 days , Specification 4: UA, 20010925 - 20010928, 4 days , and Specification 5: UA, 20010916 - 20010924, 9 days ). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant waived his r ights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks an upgrade for employment opportunities. The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was the subject of hazing , which mitigates his misconduct. The record does not support the Applicant’s contention. The record clearly shows the Applicant had numerous NJP s and retention warnings and one summary court-martial. The Applicant’s offenses included numerous periods of unauthorized absence , including one in excess of 30 days. UA in excess of 30 days is a serious offense that could have resulted in confinement and a punitive discharge if adjudicated at special court-martial. The Applicant submitted no documentation or evidence to support his contention. The NDRB found the Applicant’s command was lenient in pursuing administrative discharge rather than special court-martial with much more serious punishment s for the Applicant. The NDRB determined 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 .

 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801467

    Original file (ND0801467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Feels the military should train service members about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The Board determined his request for an upgrade was without merit.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101800

    Original file (ND1101800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to re-enlist in the U.S. Army.2. The Applicant has an HKD separation code on his DD Form 214, which indicates he waived his right to request an administrative board. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101635

    Original file (ND1101635.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 August 2007, the Separation Authority directed that the Applicant be separated from the Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the administrative separation 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801326

    Original file (ND0801326.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100604

    Original file (ND1100604.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service during her enlistment period reflects one NAVPERS 1070/613 retention-counseling warning being issued. Furthermore, the Applicant’s service record documents four nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specifically: Article 86 (Absent without leave, 4 specifications of unauthorized absence); Article 87 (Missing movement); Article 89 (Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer); Article 91...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700434

    Original file (ND0700434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ 99 JUN 08 ” “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS ” “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700498

    Original file (ND0700498.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)19990812 - 19990822Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19990823Years Contracted:Date of Discharge:20011012Length of Service: 02 Yrs 01Mths18 DysLost Time:Days UA: 02 Days Confined: Education Level: Age at...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701075

    Original file (ND0701075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct which resulted in the Applicant’s discharge and characterization of his service. Appeal denied 19921002: Vacated previously suspended punishment due to continued misconduct.19921002: NJP – Violation of UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence, three specifications): 0630 19920919 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920922 UA from restricted muster, 0630 19920923 Awarded - FOP ($100/month for two...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400582

    Original file (ND1400582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of his record revealed that his PTSD was from pre-service events and not as the result of a deployment in support of a contingency operation, and so his case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800775

    Original file (MD0800775.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate:() .The Applicant claims his post service actions support upgrading his characterization of service. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of a verifiable employment record, documentation of community/church service, evidence of financial stability; statements from his references or a copy of his college diploma.The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from...