Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200290
Original file (ND1200290.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MS3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20111117
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)        19800317 - 19800330     Active:            19800331 - 19840226
                                             19840227 - 19880219
                                    USN      19880303 - 19890419 HON
          USNR     19890420 - 1 9 890801 COG                     19890802 - 19920601
         USN R      19920627 - 19940613 HON                     19940614 - 20000704

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20000705     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20010919      Highest Rank/Rate: MS1
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 15 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 60
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 4.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 3.57

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (2) NM C EM (3) (2) (4)

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20001013 :      Article (Absence without leave , 20000911-20000921, 10 days)
         Article (Missing movement)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20010524 :      Article (Absence without leave, 20010420-20010515, 25 days )
         Article (Missing movement)
         Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer)
          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:

          “ ”
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 31, effective 25 January 2001 until 21 August 2002,
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 87 and 90 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant requests an upgrade to receive his retirement.
2.       The Applicant contends he was treated unfairly by the command.
3.       The Applicant contends his misconduct is mitigated by his otherwise honorable record of service.
Decision

Date: 20 1 2 1206             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. T he 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 Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 2 specifications ), Article 87 ( Missing movement, 2 specifications ), and Article 90 ( Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, 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 waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board but exercised his right to submit a written statement .

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant requests an upgrade to receive his retirement. The NDRB is limited to the review of the propriety and equity of a discharge. Retirement benefits and retirement pay are not within the scope of the NDRB . The Applicant is directed to the Board for Correction of Naval Records f or this issue.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was treated unfairly by the command. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention his command treated him unfairly. The Applicant’s service included two non-judicial punishments for violations of UCMJ Articles 86, 87, and 90. Violations of UCMJ Article s 87 and 90 are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized. Furthermore, the Applicant waived his opportunity for an administrative board hearing , which was his opportunity to rebut the charges against him. The NDRB determined an upgrade to characterization was not warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his misconduct is mitigated by his otherwise honorable service of record. The Applicant states his character is demonstrated by his superior in - service performance ( o verall evaluation marks of 4.0/4.0) and the attainment of the rank of MS1. The Applicant had six previous Honorable enlistments. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. During his current enlistment, t he 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. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating Article s 86, 87, and 90 in the current enlistment. The Applicant’s c ommanding off icer provided the following comments in his recommendation for administrative separation, “Looking at MS3 ’s statement, he was a stellar Mess Management Specialist and Sailor during his prior enlistments and time in the reserve and has been awarded an Honorable Discharge for that period of time. Since returning to active duty and reporting on board , he has been a problem. By going UA , he not only caused more work for his fellow MS’s and reduced customer service levels to the crew, but he has placed an

administrative burden on his entire chain of command. I strongly recommend expediting the discharge of MS3 from the Naval Service with an Other Than Honorable characterization.” Based on the Applicant’s record of service, the NDRB determined the Applicant engaged in conduct involving one or more acts or omissions that constituted a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Naval Service, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800473

    Original file (ND0800473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Board voted 3-0 that he had committed misconduct by the commission of a serious offense and recommended his discharge with an overall characterization of service as under other than honorable. ” 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. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801391

    Original file (ND0801391.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the misconduct represented significant negative conduct and the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate; an upgrade to “Honorable” 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 ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000673

    Original file (ND1000673.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 | 2000_Navy | ND00-00105

    Original file (ND00-00105.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000720. Documentation Only the applicant's service record was reviewed, as the applicant did not provide additional documentation to be considered. No indication of appeal in the record.870609: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by your illegal or wrongful use or possession of a controlled...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801728

    Original file (ND0801728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00970

    Original file (ND00-00970.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.970806: Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Disrespectful in language toward a petty officer; and communicating threats. No indication of appeal in the record.980929: Vacate suspended forfeiture of $400.00 for 1 month, extra duty for 15 days and reduction to MS3 awarded at CO's NJP of 4Aug98 due to continued misconduct.980929: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 89 (2 specs): Disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer, violation of UCMJ,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00610

    Original file (ND02-00610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00610 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020403, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to completed required service. Issue 1: The Applicant requested the Board upgrade his discharge to honorable based upon the fact that he believes misappropriating a box of crab legs does not justify a General discharge. For the record, the Applicant was found by an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902563

    Original file (ND0902563.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, and medical 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700619

    Original file (ND0700619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19960111 - 19660324 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19960325 Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19981203Length of Service: 2 Yrs 8Mths9 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: 89 Days...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00869

    Original file (ND02-00869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00869 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020606, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter to the Applicant, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of good character and conduct.