Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101252
Original file (ND1101252.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AR, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110419
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)        20000731 - 20000814     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000815     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020521      Highest Rank/Rate: AA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 07 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 82
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.17

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NONE

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20011106 :       Article ( )
         Article ( )
         Awarded : (to E-1) Susp ended: (suspended 6 months)
         * Suspended RIR (to E-1) vacated on 20011128

- 20011206 :       Article ( , )
         Awarded : Susp ended:

S CM :

- 20020427 :       Art icle ( , Compaq laptop computer valued at $1200 )
         Sentence : CONF (30 days)

SPCM:

C C :

- 20020228 :       Offense: Driving with a suspended driver’s license.
          Sentence : $102.00 fine plus court cost.

- 20020304 :       Offense: Driving with s uspended operator ’ s license, Capias (warrant) , and driving without seatbelt .
         Sentence : $350 fine plus $40.00 court costs, 30 days in jail (suspended), operator ’ s license suspended 90 days, and 1 year unsupervised probation for the s uspended license charge. $50.00 fine plus $30.00 court costs for Capias charge. $25.00 fine for no seatbelt charge .


Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20011106 :       For violation of UCMJ A rticle 86, Absence without leave and A rticle 92, F ailure to obey a lawful 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 :        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 22, effective 15 December 1998 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT .

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 and .


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 and health benefits.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0405             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 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 discharge and the discharge process to ensure the pertinent standards of equity and propriety were met . The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warning, for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article ( Absence without leave , 4 specifications ) and Article ( Failure to obey an order or regulation ), and one summary court-martial for violation of UCMJ Article 121 ( Larceny , stole a Compaq laptop computer valued at $1200 from a ship mate , o/o 22 Apr 2002 ) . The record also revealed the Applicant received two civil convictions (28 Feb 2002 , date of arrest 26 Dec 2001 ; and 4 Mar 2002 , date of arrest 13 Sep 2001 ) for violations that included d riving on a suspended driver’s license, Capias (warrant), and driving with no seatbelt. Although no evidence of adjudication could be found within the records, the Board did note charge sheets within the record for periods of unauthorized absence that included: 18, 28, and 29 Dec 2001; 28 and 30 Jan 2002; 1, 4, and 27 Feb 2002; and 20 Mar 2002. Based on the repeated offenses committed by the Applicant , his command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing for Pattern of Misconduct and Commission of a Serious Offense using the administrative board procedure on 1 May 2002 , the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . For reasons unclear to the NDRB, the right to request an administrative separation board was marked “N/A . ” The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 21 May 2002 with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to obtain veteran education and health benefits. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. 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.

The Applicant met the requirements for separation due to Misconduct - Pattern of Misconduct with his NJP - Page 13 retention warning - NJP.

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, 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001703

    Original file (ND1001703.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant.The Applicant’s record of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901468

    Original file (ND0901468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: 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 governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300487

    Original file (ND1300487.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 service-related health benefits.2. ” 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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600011

    Original file (ND0600011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION 000505: Applicant completed ARD Norfolk Level I treatment.000606: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Convicted in the Traffic Division, General District Court, Norfolk, VA of driving with a suspended license on 1 March 00 and sentenced to $100.00 fine and 10 days in jail.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02914

    Original file (BC-2007-02914.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 May 06, she submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her BCD be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The DRB concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00238

    Original file (ND01-00238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. No indication of appeal in the record.920201: Civil Conviction for theft; stolen license tag, driving while license suspended, faulty equipment [Extracted from CO's message].920218: Civil Conviction for driving while license suspended, faulty equipment, violation of probation for leaving the scene of an accident [Extracted from CO's message]. At...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901014

    Original file (ND0901014.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a review of the evidence of record and statement submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined that there was sufficient evidence to support a discharge based on fraudulent enlistment. The Applicant also contends that an upgrade is justified based on the fact that he honorably served his country for 40months, excelled at his rating and received awards.Taking into consideration the Applicant’s overall record and hisconduct,which reflected his willful failure to meet the...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00181

    Original file (FD2006-00181.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. j United States Air Force, 743 EAS, was arraigned at CHARGE I: Article 81 + Plea; G. Finding: G. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Specification: Did, at A1 Udeid Air Base, Qatar, between on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101211

    Original file (ND1101211.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. In lieu of the full...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700133

    Original file (ND0700133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    86 – [Unauthorized absence (2 specs)]; Viol of UCMJ Art 107 – (False official statement). ” 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. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency.