Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101488
Original file (ND1101488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MASN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110525
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)        20050825 - 20060123     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20060124     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20100819      Highest Rank/Rate: MA3
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 26 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 61
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.5 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.28

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20100516 :      Article (Absence without leave 0730-0750, 20100425)
         Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 134 (General A rticle - communicating a threat)
          Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20071002 :      For failure to obey order or regulation (dereliction of duty - sleeping on post).

- 20100516 :      For absence without leave, failure to obey order or regulation , and communicating a threat.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 04 06 26 ”

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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 10 November 2009 until 17 August 2011, 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 92 and 134 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded to improve employment opportunities.
2.       The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive G.I. Bill benefits.
3.       The Applicant believes that, except for the one occasion of receiving nonjudicial punishment (NJP), his career was perfect.
4.       The Applicant provided an employer’s evaluation, suggesting he believes his post-service conduct is worthy of an upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0802             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’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and nonjudicial punishment for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Unauthorized absence, 1 specification), Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification), and Article 134 (General Article, c ommunicating a threat, 1 specification). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant elected his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded to improve 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.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants his discharge upgraded so he can receive G.I. Bill benefits . There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes that, except for the one occasion of receiving NJP , his career was perfect. Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Articles 92 and 134 are such offenses. Failing to obey an order or regulation and communicating a threat can result in an unfavorable characterization of discharge or, at a maximum, a punitive discharge, and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. At NJP proceedings, t he Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article s 92 and 134 , as well as Article 86 , of the UCMJ. His command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant provided a copy of an evaluation from his employer, suggesting he believes his post-service conduct is worthy of upgrading his discharge. 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. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. 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. 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 | 2013_Marine | MD1300821

    Original file (MD1300821.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902500

    Original file (ND0902500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. 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 foundTherefore, 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101889

    Original file (ND1101889.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade for educational opportunities.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 has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole...

  • 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 | ND0902062

    Original file (ND0902062.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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.Summary: After a thorough...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801237

    Original file (ND0801237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record.Due to the significant negative aspects in the Applicants record of service, the Board determined thatthe medical evaluations were sufficient enough to only support an upgrade in the discharge characterization to “ General (Under Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801789

    Original file (ND0801789.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200127

    Original file (ND1200127.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, testimony, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant is not eligible for further review from the NDRB. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900703

    Original file (ND0900703.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900686

    Original file (MD0900686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Summary: 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 Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain “Bad Conduct Discharge,” and the narrative reason for separation shall remain “Court-Martial.” The Applicant...