Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102122
Original file (ND1102122.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AKAA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20110919
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:       UPGRADE RE-4 CODE

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20010409 - 20010424     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20010425     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20021016      Highest Rank/Rate: AKAA
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 79
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 1.67

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 200205 18 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation , 2 specifications )
                  Specification 1: Failure to obey the class A lpha liberty risk policy , 20020430
                  Specification 2: Failure to obey the class A lpha liberty risk policy , 20020501
         Article (False official statements , 2 specifications )
                  Specification 1: Fals ifying the S upply D ept liberty log , 20020501
                  Specification 2: Fals ifying the S upply D ept liberty log , 20020502
         Awarded : Susp ended: (suspend 6 months)

- 20021001 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Awarded: (to E-1) Suspended:
         (*Extracted from Evaluation Report, Awards/Page 3, Enlisted Ratings/Page 2)
S CM :             SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010426 :       For fraudulent induction as evidenced by your failure to disclose required basic enlistment eligibility information . Dependent child not documented (2 Dependents total) (oldest child was abducted by natural father 8/97 and has not been seen since).

- 20020518 :       For the following deficiencies in your performance and/or conduct are identified: Commanding Officer NJP on 20020518, for violation of UCMJ A rticle s 92 (2 specs) and 107 (2 specs) .




Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”

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 1910-142, 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 107 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.
2.       Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade.

Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1004             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. Although the Applicant’s service records are incomplete (missing administrative separation documentation to include: court memorandum for NJP held on 1 October 2002, notification of administrative separation and acknowledgment of rights forms, commanding officer comments and endorsement, and the Separation Authority decision letter), the Board completed a thorough review of the available documentation to determine whether her discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) retention warnings and nonjudicial punishments (NJP s ) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave), Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation, 2 specifications: disobeyed liberty risk policy for class A liberty risk status personnel, on 30 April 2002 and 1 May 2002 ), and Article 107 ( False official statement, 2 specifications: falsification of Supply Department liberty logbook on 1 May and 2 May 2002 ) . There was no evidence of trial by courts-martial. Based on the serious and repeated offenses committed by the Applicant, her command processed her for administrative separation. Since the NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package documentation available for review, it could not determine whether th e Applicant exercised or waived her rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 16 October 2002 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Misconduct (C ommission of a Serious Offense ) .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant seeks a discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. 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.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends her post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade. The NDRB considers post-service conduct in order to determine if the misconduct committed during active duty was indicative of the Applicant ’ s character or an aberration. However, there is no law or regulation that provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. The Applicant provided a personal statement as evidence of post-service accomplishments. Although h er efforts to improve h er life are noteworthy, s he failed to provide adequate documentation and evidence on h er behalf to support a thorough post-service conduct review . She could have submitted documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, c ompletion 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.




Per the Naval Military Personnel Manual, when a Sailor’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under Honorable conditions. A General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s service record. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of service, reflects the Applicant’s willful failure to meet the requirements of conduct expected of all Sailors, regardless of h er grade or length of service, and falls short of what is required for an upgrade in the characterization of service to Honorable. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice and r ecord e ntries, 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 | ND1301615

    Original file (ND1301615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19861025 - 19870713Active:19870714 - 19910713Inactive:USNR (DEP) UNABLE TO DETERMINE Active: UNABLE TO DETERMINEInactive:USNR (DEP)20000929 - 20001218 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20001219Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: Years17 MONTHSExtensionDate of Discharge:20031031Highest Rank/Rate:PNSNLength of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 13...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300550

    Original file (MD1300550.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.During the Applicant’s three years and eight months of service, he received one retention warning and was found guilty at two NJPs and one Summary Court-Martial of violating several UCMJ articles. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200276

    Original file (MD1200276.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant’s post-service conduct does not warrant clemency. Clemency denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant is eligible for a personal hearing for 15 years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400370

    Original file (MD1400370.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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300660

    Original file (MD1300660.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her command granted her request, and she was discharged on 20 April 2012.: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to be eligible for reenlistment.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. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901215

    Original file (ND0901215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901885

    Original file (ND0901885.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 | 2012_Marine | MD1200753

    Original file (MD1200753.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Applicant submitted a request for a conditional waiver of his administrative separation board if his discharge would be suspended for twelve months where the Applicant stated his understanding and acknowledged that any further misconduct during the suspension period on his part would cause the vacation of the suspension and execution of the discharge with a characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.The NDRB determined there was no impropriety or inequity with...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101999

    Original file (MD1101999.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The administrative board voted 3-0 to separate the Applicant with a characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001819

    Original file (MD1001819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command opted to prefer the new charges of misconduct to trial by special court-martial.The stated misconduct resulted in the special court-martial awarding a punitive Bad Conduct Dischargeand confinement for 6 months.The NDRB recognizes that many of our service members are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most manage to serve their enlistment honorably. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record...