Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101722
Original file (ND1101722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AOAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110711
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)        20070921 - 20080401     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20080402     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20100723      Highest Rank/Rate: AOAN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 22 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 40
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.83
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM

Periods of UA :

NJP : NONE S CM : NONE SPCM: NONE   CC: NONE         Retention Warning Counseling : NONE

GCM: 1
          - 20100326:      Article 120 (Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct, aggravated sexual assault)
                  Sentence: RIR FOP CONF 90 days (20100326 - 20100606, 77 days)
                   [The findings of guilty and the sentence were disapproved on 20101122 due to error on the part of the military judge by improperly excluding relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence]
                           
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 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 120.


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applican t seeks a change to his RE Code .
2.       The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for the G.I. Bill.
 3 .       The Applicant contends the sentence from his G eneral Court-Martial (GCM) w as overturned .         

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 0906             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation : none

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’s record of service included one G eneral C ourt- M artial for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 120 (Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct, aggravated sexual assault). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the administrative board procedure, the Applicant exercised his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board. By a unanimous vote , the Administrative Separation Board found that the preponderance of the evidence support ed Commission of a Serious Offense (Sexual Perversion). The board then voted 2-1 to recommend that the Applicant be separated from the U.S. Navy with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions character of service. The GCM findings of guilt and the sentence were disapproved on 22 November 2010 due to error on the part of the military judge by improperly excluding relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence.

: (Nondecisional) . The Applicant seeks a change to his 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 B oard for Correction of Naval Records 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.
: (Nondecisional). The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to qualify for the G.I. Bill. 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.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was improper , because the charges and sentence from his GCM were dismissed. Even though the GCM charges were dismissed, his command still believed that he committed a serious offense and so initiated separation processing for Misconduct (Sexual Perversion) per 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. In accordance with Article 1910-142, servicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The Applicant elected to present his case before an Administrative Separation Board where the members voted unanimously that misconduct did occur and by a vote of 2-1 that the Applicant should be separated Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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 | 2015_Marine | MD1500008

    Original file (MD1500008.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100782

    Original file (ND1100782.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 .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 | 2014_Navy | ND1400712

    Original file (ND1400712.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision Date: 20140904Location: Washington D.C.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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100698

    Original file (ND1100698.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable as it was based on an isolated incident in 14 years of service with no other adverse actions.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001652

    Original file (ND1001652.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 . 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801415

    Original file (MD0801415.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The three member administrative board returned findings of misconduct by a vote of 2-1, by a vote of 3-0 that the misconduct warranted separation, and by a vote of 3-0 that the separation should be characterized as “Under Other Than Honorable ” . 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900255

    Original file (ND0900255.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801949

    Original file (ND0801949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The second Administrative Separation Board determined the preponderance of the evidence supported misconduct, but this time recommended the Applicant by separated with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” discharge. 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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801440

    Original file (ND0801440.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the record of evidence does not show the Applicant was not responsible for his actions or should not be held accountable for them due to PTSD.The evidence of record does not show where the VA has indicated the Applicant’s record of service should be considered “Honorable”: The Applicant’s attempted criminal solicitation of a minor for his sexual gratification falls short of conduct worthy of an “Honorable” characterization. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101243

    Original file (MD1101243.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enhance employment opportunities.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 . ” Additional Reviews...