Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200847
Original file (ND1200847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


ex-STGSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120301
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)        20060131 - 20060226     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20060227     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20091228      Highest Rank/Rate: STG3
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 02 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 82
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3. 2 ( 4 )      Behavior: 2 . 5 ( 4 )        OTA: 3. 16

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle Pistol

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20090417 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article 112 (Drunk on duty)
         Awarded: Suspended: Vacated 20090417

- 200905 20 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, dereliction in the performance of duties) [Extracted from Commanding Officer letter dated 20091218]
         Awarded: Vacation of previous punishment awarded on 20090417 Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20090417 :      No specifics found in record [Extracted from Commanding Officer letter dated 20091218]

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) ”
         
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 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 s of the UCMJ, Article s 92 and 112 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant wants her discharge upgraded so she can use the post 9/11 G.I. Bill. She also contends she was misled to believe that she could receive v eterans benefits with a General discharge if she w rote a letter to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requesting reconsideration since she did not receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.
2.       The Applicant contends she received a General discharge seven months after the misconduct, was seeing a psychiatrist, was on medication, was updating the ship on her great progress, and was discharged only four months before the end of her enlistment.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0221             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. The Applicant did not identify any decisional issues to the Board. However, 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and non-judicial punishments for violations o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave, 1 specification) , Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation, 1 specification), and Article 112 (Drunk on duty, 1 specification). 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 the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Non - decisional) The Applicant wants her discharge upgraded so she can use the post 9/11 G.I. Bill . She also c ontends she was misled to believe that she could receive veterans benefits with a General discharge if she were to write a letter to the VA requesting reconsideration since she did not receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. There is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to educational benefits offered by the VA . Th e NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. The Applicant should contact the VA for additional assistance regarding a be nefit determination review.

: ( D ecisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends she received a General discharge seven months after the misconduct, was seeing a psychiatrist, was on medication, was updating the ship on her great progress, and was discharged only four months before the end of her enlistment. During the Applicant’s three years and ten months of service, she received a retention warning and was found guilty of violating UCMJ Articles 86, 92, and 112 at two NJPs. Violations of Articles 92 and 112 are considered serious offenses, and with the NJP - Page 13 warning - NJP, she met the requirements for administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct) and Misconduct (Serious Offense). Even though she was seeing a psychiatrist, Department of Defense disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. The NDRB found nothing in her records, and she did not submit any documentation, to show that she was either not responsible for her actions or should not be held accountable for her misconduct. Even though there was a seven-month separation between her last NJP and her discharge, this is not unusual and was likely due to the ship’s operational tempo, nor does it mitigate or excuse the misconduct. The NDRB determined the discharge was 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1201199

    Original file (MD1201199.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.In accordance with Paragraph 1004 of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, an Honorable characterization of service upon the expiration of active duty is appropriate when the quality of a Marine’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel. Based upon his average Pro/Con marks, the NDRB determined his General discharge was...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200190

    Original file (MD1200190.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USMCR (DEP)20020801 - 20030526Active:20030527 - 20070711 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20070712Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years MonthsDate of Discharge:20110328Highest Rank:Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)17 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT:82MOS: 4421Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions):/Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0902225

    Original file (MD0902225.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 6105 counseling warnings and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Larceny, stole $160.00 from an ATM Machine, the property of another Marine).Based on the Applicant’s failure to adapt to the Marine Corps, command administratively processed for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400581

    Original file (ND1400581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20080731 - 20080921Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20080922Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100604Highest Rank/Rate:MMFALength of Service:YearMonths14 DaysEducation Level:AFQT: 44EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001370

    Original file (ND1001370.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 04 June 2004, the Separation Authority directed the Applicant’s discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service due to Misconduct (Drug Abuse); he further directed that the Applicant be assigned an RE-4 re-entry code (not recommended for reenlistment).The Applicant provided additional documentation ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400619

    Original file (MD1400619.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200893

    Original file (ND1200893.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20060728 - 20060806Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060807Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20100416Highest Rank/Rate:AOANLength of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 10 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 35EvaluationMarks:Performance:2.7(6)Behavior:2.5(6)OTA: 2.75Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Pistol...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201259

    Original file (ND1201259.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to:CONDITION INTERFERES WITH DUTY Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20020423 - 20021209Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20021210Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040525Highest Rank/Rate: SNLength of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 16 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 62EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:1.0(1)OTA: 2.50Awards and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001983

    Original file (ND1001983.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade to enlist in the Reserves.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. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400279

    Original file (ND1400279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant implied in her DD Form 293 statement that her PTSD was not a result of a deployment in support of a contingency operation, and so her case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1).However, based on the Applicant’s claim of PTSD due to a sexual assault, the Naval Discharge Review Board included a psychiatrist on the board.The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is...