Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101184
Original file (ND1101184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ITSR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110407
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)        20010222 - 20010625     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010626     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20050629      Highest Rank/Rate: IT3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 04 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.3 ( 7 )      Behavior: 2.4 ( 7 )        OTA: 2.89

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

NJP :

- 20030211 :       Article ( - failure to go to appointed place of duty, )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20050311 :       Article ( , )
         Article ( Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, )
         Article ( , )
         Article ( - unauthorized pass by possessing two ID cards, )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

- 20050421 :       Article ( - failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restricted muster , )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :

- 2005031 6 :       Art icle ( - failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restricted muster, )
         Article 90 ( Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer , 1 specification)
         Sentence : FOP CONF FOR 30 DAYS (Dates NFIR)

- 20050523 :       Art icle ( - failure to go to appointed place of duty, to wit: restricted muster , )
         Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification)
         Sentence : (20050523-20050616, 25 days)

SPCM:    C C :


Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20030211 :       For failing to go to place of duty.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ 03 11 06 ”
         Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM SERVICE MEDAL, NAVY "E" RIBBON, SEA SERVICE DEPLOYMENT RIBBON, ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL ”
         “ 03DEC28 TO 03DEC31, 05MAY23 TO 05JUN16 ”

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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant seeks an upgrade for service benefits.
2.       The Applicant faul ts youth , immaturity , and a sleep condition for his misconduct.
3.       The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

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 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 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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning , for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( , for failure to go to appointed place of duty ), Article ( Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, , violated overseas liberty policy ), Article ( , , stated he had only one ID card ), and Article ( General A rticle, , unauthorized pass by possessing two ID cards ) , and for of the UCMJ: Article ( , 32 specifications for failure to go to appointed place of duty ) , Article ( Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer , , introduced, possessed, and used alcoholic beverages onboard ship ), and Article ( , , f or being out of the rack after 2200 ) . Based on the , command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised his right to consult with a qualified counsel but rights to submit a written statement and request an administrative board .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks 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 provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant states the mistakes he made as a young adult should not be a reflection of his current character, thus faul t ing youth , immaturity , and a sleep condition for his misconduct. The NDRB recognizes that many service members are young at the time they enlist for service , however, most serve honorably. While the Board understands some members are not as mature or as capable of effectively dealing with personal problems as others, it does not view a member’s claim of immaturity and personal problems to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s sleep problems and inability to wake up on time were not mitigating factors in his frequent and serious misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant stated he has no criminal history as a civilian , suggesting his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for upgrading his discharge . The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law, or regulation, that provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to exist during the period of enlistment in question. The Applicant did not submit any documentation along with the DD Form 293. His efforts needed to have been more encompassing. He could have provided documentation as specified in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, c ompletion 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. 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), 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 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 | ND0900888

    Original file (ND0900888.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Based on an isolated incident in 37 months of service. 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 Applicant’s date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301090

    Original file (ND1301090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not warrant relief. 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 .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for a personal...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400203

    Original file (MD1400203.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01286

    Original file (ND02-01286.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-01286 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. No indication of appeal in the record.001128: Vacate the remaining month of suspended forfeiture of $503.00 for 1 month awarded at CO's NJP dated 001027 due to continued misconduct.010127: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 010108. After a thorough review of the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00197

    Original file (ND03-00197.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500776

    Original file (ND0500776.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. While the Applicant may feel that there were mitigating factors to his misconduct, the record does not contain, nor did t he Applicant provide, any evidence to suggest that he was not responsible, or should not be held accountable, for his misconduct. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301530

    Original file (ND1301530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge to help an Applicant’s life or to help him support his family. 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 personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100517

    Original file (ND1100517.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Summary: After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01041

    Original file (ND04-01041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01041 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. 900710: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86 (21 specifications): UA from pre-trial restriction muster. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 19930222 with a bad conduct discharge which was the sentence adjudged by a properly convened special court-martial.

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0601072

    Original file (MD0601072.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. Specification 8: Failed to go at time prescribed to appointed place of duty on or about 0700, 19891017, restriction muster.Court-martial Date: 19891014 & 19891226 Findings: Guilty of Article(s) 86, 92, 112a Applicant...