Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101449
Original file (ND1101449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-HN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110517
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:       Lack of dependent support (HKH)

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        19990108 - 19990913     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19990914     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20030328      Highest Rank/Rate: HN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 52
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.2 ( 5 )      Behavior: 2.2 ( 5 )        OTA: 2.67

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20030228 :      Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :     

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010905 :       For not having a current Dependent Care Certificate on file .

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL ”
         Block 26, “ HKN ”
         Block 28, “ MISCONDUCT ( MINOR INFRACTIONS ) ”

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), 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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends her discharge was based on an isolated incident and only minor offenses in 41 months of service.
2.       The Applicant contends she was to be separated by reason of Convenience of the Government due to Parenthood .
3 .       The Applicant contends s he warrant s an upgrade base d on h er in-service conduct.
4 .       The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity were contributing factors in h er misconduct .
 5 .       The Applicant believes her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0725             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 NAV PERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her discharge w as based on an isolated incident and only minor offenses in 41 months of service. A review of the record shows that the Applicant displayed a pattern of below average performance and behavior that was officially documented in her below-average overall trait average of 2.67 on her Evaluations, NJP, and retention warning counseling. As a result, she was separated prior to the end of her enlistment for Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. The NDRB determined that the separation was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends she was to be separated by reason of Convenience of the Government due to Parenthood. The Applicant’s record of service shows the Applicant was notified on 24 October 2001 of separation proceedings because of her inability to abide by the Navy’s Family Care Plan requirements. Her command forwarded the request to Navy Personnel Command, who disapproved the request for separation and ordered that the Applicant be retained in service at her present command until her End of Active Obligated Service in 2003. From December 2001 until her separation in March 2003 , the Applicant had a variety of misconduct that ultimately resulted in her separation due to Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions . An Evaluation Report and Counseling Record for the period 16 July 2001 through 15 July 2002 shows the Applicant was formally counseled and assigned extra military instruction for disrespect to a commissioned officer, an UCMJ Article 91 violation. This report also stated that the Applicant was unmotivated, rarely accomplishes tasks without being assigned, and is unwilling to take on extra responsibility to aid in achieving the goals of the clinic. The Applicant was later taken to NJP on 28 February 2003 and found guilty of violating Article 91 of the UCMJ . The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that her in-service conduct of receiving a Good Conduct Medal and average proficiency and conduct marks warrants an upgrade . The Applicant was administratively separated and not separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The characterization of service is determined by the quality of the member’s total performance of duty and conduct during the current enlistment, including the

reason for separation. Other considerations shall be given to the member’s length of service, grade, aptitude, and physical and mental condition. Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of h er conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of h er service record, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. Relief denied.

4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity were contributing factors in her misconduct. While the Applicant may feel youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of h er misconduct, the record clearly reflects her willful misconduct and demonstrated she was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for h er conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief denied.

5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes her post-service conduct is worthy of consideration for an upgrade to Honorable. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal statement, copy of Associate in Science diploma, and three character references. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 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), 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

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901736

    Original file (MD0901736.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. Reenlistment/RE-code : Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001155

    Original file (MD1001155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Decisional issues: The Applicant contends that she warrants an upgrade in the characterization of her service at discharge because her Pro/Cons were above 4.0/4.0 if an administrative oversight is corrected. By a vote of 5-0, the NDRB determined that the characterization of service received at discharge was warranted and that an upgrade would be inappropriate. ” Additional...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000014

    Original file (MD1000014.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. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000170

    Original file (MD1000170.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former service member is eligible for benefits is different than that used by the Department of the Navy when determining a member’s characterization of service at discharge.The Applicant should be aware that submission of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board, on a case-by-case basis, in consideration of the unique factors of each discharge action. The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301310

    Original file (MD1301310.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. This NJP occurred prior to reaching three years of service.Summary: After a thorough review of the available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400167

    Original file (ND1400167.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends she received no rate training or support from her chain of command.2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401021

    Original file (MD1401021.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief granted.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000808

    Original file (ND1000808.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. The Applicant was advised...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001335

    Original file (ND1001335.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues Decisional issue: The Applicant contends that her characterization of service at discharge was inequitable as it was based on one isolated incident in over 35 months of otherwise honorable service, she was discharged due to parenthood - not for misconduct, and her performance and conduct of record warrant a characterization of Honorable. The Applicant’s service record documents...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000479

    Original file (ND1000479.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 . ” 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...