Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101951
Original file (ND1101951.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-PR2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110816
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)        19910102 - 19941020     Active:            19910102 - 19941020
         USNR      19941021 - 19990101                        20010629 - 20041209
         USNR (DEP)       20010626 - 20010628

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20041210     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20100915      Highest Rank/Rate: PR1
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 06 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 34
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.9 ( 7 )      Behavior: 3.5 ( 7 )        OTA: 3.63

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) (2) (3) (2) (2) (3) EAWS

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20100820 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation - wrongfully engaged in unduly familiar relationship with a junior sailor )
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :      Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ 01 JUN 26 ”
         “ 09 04 20 ”
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 010626 UNTIL 041209 ”

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 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 .




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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends that his punishment was unjust and based on hearsay .
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident in 13 years of honorable service .
3.       The Applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to speak on his own behalf.
Decision

Date : 20 1 2 0914             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 discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Mil itary Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation , wrongfully engaged in unduly familiar relationship with a junior sailor ). Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his punishment was unjust , because it was based on hearsay with no verified evidence . The Manual for Courts-Martial United States, Part V, indicates the rules of evidence, other than with respect to privileges, do not apply at NJP proceedings. Therefore, hearsay evidence is permissible and the Applicant’s contention the NJP was based on hearsay and presumable evidence has no merit. The Applicant has not presented any documentation to prove the commanding officer disregarded relevant information or failed to comply with applicable regulations during the NJP proceedings. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident. Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 92 is such an offense. Failure to obey an order or regulation usually results 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. The Applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 92 . However, 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 and consistent with the characterization of discharge given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. In accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, 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 statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but he waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301414

    Original file (ND1301414.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001394

    Original file (MD1001394.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.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 from the date of the Applicant’s discharge has passed, he is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300010

    Original file (ND1300010.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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300736

    Original file (ND1300736.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900300

    Original file (ND0900300.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change. With respect to a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301175

    Original file (ND1301175.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he was found guilty on the basis of hearsay evidence that would not have held up in a court-martial. Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801853

    Original file (ND0801853.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s provided no documentation or additional evidence in support of his request and as such the Board determined the in-service performance was found not to be sufficient to justify an upgrade. Based on a review of available evidence, the Board determined HKQ was the appropriate separation designation code since the Applicant was processed for misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301450

    Original file (MD1301450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the records and documentation submitted by the Applicant, the NDRB determined he did not present any documentation to prove the commanding officer or his Board of Inquiry disregarded relevant information or failed to comply with applicable regulations during the NJP and Board of Inquiry proceedings. ” 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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500038

    Original file (ND1500038.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board and the complete record of his administrative board, to include transcripts, was reviewed by the NDRB. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700912

    Original file (ND0700912.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Process Charges Preferred: NOT FOUND IN RECORDCharges and Specifications: Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 19940901 to 19941020 (49 days, 12 hrs, 15 mins)Date Applicant Submitted SILT request: 19950127 Consulted with or Waived Counsel: Consulted Acknowledged Understanding Elements: Acknowledged Guilt to: Article86 BCD/DD authorized for offense(s) Acknowledged Consequences of OTH: Type of Characterization Requested: Separation Authority (date): COMMANDING OFFICER, TRANSIENT...