Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101109
Original file (ND1101109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AOAA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110329
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)        19960920 - 19961119     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19961120     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20000314      Highest Rank/Rate: AOAN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 57
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: NFIR         Behavior: NFIR   OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 19970410 :      Article (Absence without leave, UA, 2 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended: RESTR EPD (suspend 6 months)

- 19980225 :      Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation , 19980109 )
         Awarded : Susp ended: (suspend 6 months)

- 1998 0 8 1 3 :      Article (Drunkenness , incapacitation for performance of duties th r ough prior wrongful indulgence in i ntoxicating liquor or any drug)
         Awarded: (to E-2) FOP Suspended: NONE

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 19970410 :       For violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (2 specifications) .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          Block 25 , “ MILPERSMAN 1910 -142 ”
         Block 28, “ 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 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 92 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant contends command impropriety and false accusation that he was using illegal drugs led to his separation.

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 05 31             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 identif ied one decisional issue for the Board ’s consideration . Although the Applicant’s service records are incomplete (missing administrative separation documentation to include: notification of administrative separation and acknowledgment of rights forms, commanding officer comments and endorsement, and the Separation Authority decision letter), the Board completed a thorough review of the available documentation to determine whether discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included one NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, UA, 2 specifications ), Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation , 9 January 1998 ), and Article 134 ( Drunkenness, incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug). There was no evidence of trial by courts-martial. Based on the repeated offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package available to determine whether he exercised or waived his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . The separation JKQ code listed on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he was not eligible for an administrative separation board hearing. The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 14 March 2000 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Misconduct (Com mission of a Serious Offense).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends command impropriety and false accusation that he was using illegal drugs led to his separation from the Navy. T he NDRB is not an investigative body, and allegations of command legal or administrative impropriety should be made to the Naval Inspector General ’ s Office. Allegations notwithstanding , the Board completed a thorough review of the available documentation to determine whether discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Board could find no evidence to support the Applicant’s contention of wrongful accusation of illegal drug use , nor could it find any information concerning the Applicant’s allegation that a Commander disobeyed a Congressional order . T he record indicates the Applicant received findings of guilt at three separate Captain’s Mast proceedings (NJP) for violation s of UCMJ Articles 86 (Unauthorized absence) , 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) , and 134 (Drunkenness) . Violation of Article 92 is considered a “serious offense” and is punishable by a B ad C onduct D ischarge and six months confinement if awarded at trial by court-martial (Special or General). After considering the Applicant’s performance, conduct , and his potential for future service, the Applicant’s command opted to process him for administrative separation. Since an administrative discharge is not punishment, the decision to administratively discharge a service member is made independently of and does not require adjudication at court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, or in civil court. The characterization of service is a description of the total service provided during the member’s enlistment. When the service of a member of the Naval Service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as Honorable. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s record of service included multiple violation s of the UCMJ , including Article 92, which constitute s “commission of a serious offense . ” The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Sailors, especially considering his grade and length of service, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable. Accordingly, the Board determined this issue did not provide a basis for which relief could be granted. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice and r ecord e ntries, 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801194

    Original file (ND0801194.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sailor and the Board determined 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 decisional document requirements of DoD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801026

    Original file (ND0801026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400605

    Original file (ND1400605.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his depression led to his misconduct.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801914

    Original file (MD0801914.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the numerous NJP’s and UCMJ violations involved and an upgrade based on youth and immaturity 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900903

    Original file (ND0900903.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. However the NDRB determined the narrative reason to be most appropriate based on the three NJPs and one retention warning awarded to the Applicant.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 However, the Board determined there was sufficient evidence to support...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801626

    Original file (ND0801626.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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801960

    Original file (MD0801960.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall COURT-MARTIAL.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he deserves better than a “Bad Conduct” discharge after serving many years in the Marine Corps and taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. ” 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 discharged for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500591

    Original file (ND1500591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” 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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100619

    Original file (ND1100619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends the Navy never gave him an opportunity to go to drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900518

    Original file (ND0900518.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Service benefits.2. The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on the Applicant’s record of service would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. ” 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.