Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200435
Original file (ND1200435.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-DR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20111220
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)        19931221 - 19940320     Active:   19940321 - 19981112

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 1998 1113     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020212      Highest Rank/Rate: DT3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 00 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 52
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3. 7 ( 9 )      Behavior: 2 . 4 ( 9 )        OTA: 3. 27

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol (2) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20000503 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article 95 (Resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape)
         Article (General A rticle , 2 specifications )
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

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 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 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct , he was line to receive his third Good Conduct Medal, he was made an example of because of 9/11, there was perjury in his case, he was already being punished by his command, and his case was almost dismissed .

Decision

Date : 20 1 2 1212             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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation ), Article 95 ( Resistance, flight, breach of arrest , and escape ), and Article 134 ( General A rticle , disorderly conduct, indecent assault ) . Based on the offense s committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation . The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, or request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his record of service outweighs his misconduct , he was line to receive his third Good Conduct Medal, he was made an example of because of 9/11, there was perjury in his case, he was already being punished by his command, and his case was almost dismissed . The Applicant received an Honorable characterization of service for his first enlistment from March 1994 to November 1998. In his current enlistment, however, he was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 92, 95, and 134, all of which are consider ed serious offenses per the Manual for Courts-Martial and warrant a punitive discharge (i.e. Bad Conduct) and confinement as the result of a Special or General Court-Martial. They also meet the requirements for administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Serious Offense). His command chose the more lenient administrative separation process and recommended a lenient characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions). The 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. Based on the Applicant’s record of service in his second enlistment , the NDRB determined the Applicant’s service was honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of his conduct or performance of duty outweighed the positive aspects of his service record, and the awarded characterization of service was warranted. As to the contentions that he was made an example of because of 9/11, there was perjury in his case, he was already being punished by his command, and his case was almost dismissed, the Applicant provided no documentation to support these allegations. After a complete review of the records, the NDRB found no merit in any of these allegations and determined the Applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable. 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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400616

    Original file (MD1400616.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the Applicant’s 3 years and 7 months of service, he was found guilty of violating multiple serious UCMJ articles at four NJPs, received five retention warnings, and met the requirements to be administratively separated for a Pattern of Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, and Drug Abuse. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901058

    Original file (ND0901058.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200556

    Original file (ND1200556.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s DD Form 214 and found it to be correct, with the exception of Block 24 (Character of Service), which should read, “UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS.” According to Navy regulations, a DD Form 214 will not be issued to personnel who are discharged for immediate reenlistment on active duty. The criteria used by the VA in determining whether a former servicemember is eligible for benefits are different than that used by the Navy when...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500367

    Original file (ND1500367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Administrative Board recommended, by a vote of 3 to 0 separation by reason of misconduct due to Civilian Conviction and the characterization be Under Other Than Honorable. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400283

    Original file (ND1400283.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant seeks an upgrade and a change in his narrative reason for separation to receive educational benefits and to qualify for veteran status when applying for jobs.2. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge, or change a narrative reason for separation, for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000084

    Original file (MD1000084.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the Applicant was discharged for completion of required active service, his characterization of service is based on his proficiency/conduct (pro/con) marks during his enlistment. The NDRB determined the Applicant did not meet the minimum pro/con marks for an Honorable discharge and the awarded characterization of service was warranted.Issue 2: (Decisional) () .The Applicant contends he had almost 4 ½ years of honorable service. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00859

    Original file (ND01-00859.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-MSSR, USN Docket No. ND01-00859 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010615, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:None PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400586

    Original file (ND1400586.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends he served almost 95 percent of his enlistment.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. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00142

    Original file (ND03-00142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2) One page from Applicant’s service record (2) Statement from Applicant, dated June 15, 2003 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19990323 – 19990419 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19990420 Date of Discharge: 20000320...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500434

    Original file (MD1500434.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 (SERIOUS OFFENSE) . ” Additional Reviews : After a...