Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201025
Original file (ND1201025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABEAN, USNR
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120405
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      19960930 - 19970707     Active:            19970708 - 20000706 HON

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000707     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20040625      Highest Rank/Rate: ABEAN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 18 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 45
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.3 ( 4 )      Behavior: 1.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.86

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20030403 : Details NFIR [ E xtracted from Awards page and Evalua tion Report and Counseling Record]
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :

- 20040303 :       Art icle 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel)
         Sentence :

SPCM:                     C C :              Retention Warning Counseling :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDR B did note administrative error s on the original DD Form 214:

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 97 0708 UNTIL 000706 ”
         “ PATTERN OF 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 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.
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 Ap p licant contends he was unjustly discharged without prior notice after only two infractions for which he was already punished.
2.       The Applicant contends he warrant s an upgrade base d on his in-service conduct .
3.       The Applicant contends his misconduct was a result of diagnosed s leep a pnea.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0213             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 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): 3 April 2003, Article details not found in record [Extracted from Awards page and Evaluation Report and Counseling Record] and for of the UCMJ: Article 113 (Misbehavior of sentinel) . Based on the offenses 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, and request an administrative board . However, the Applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects a separation code of HKA , which indicates he waived his right to a separation board.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was unjustly discharged without prior notice, after only two infractions for which he was already punished. Additionally, he contends he warrants an upgrade base d on his in-service conduct . The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy . The Applicant received an Honorable characterization for his first enlistment from July 1997 to July 2000. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. In his second enlistment, he was found guilty of violating the UCMJ at NJP and found guilty of committing a serious violation of the UCMJ (Article 113) at a S ummary Court-Martial. Additionally, his evaluation marks reflected below-average performance and behavior during his enlistment. Administrative discharge processing is a separate and distinct process from punitive proceedings such as NJP or court-martial. Furthermore, administrative discharge processing is administrative in nature and not considered a form of punishment. As such, the Applicant’s contention that he was punished twice for the same misconduct is erroneous. Based upon the evidence of record, the NDRB found no improprieties or inequities in the Applicant’s discharge processing.

As for his in-service conduct, 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, 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 that a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions was warranted. Relief denied.


: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his misconduct was a result of d iagnosed s leep a pnea. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. However, the NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct. A thorough review of the Applicant’s medical records reveals that he was diagnosed with moderate sleep apnea on 30 October 2000. The NDRB found no further reference s pertaining to sleep apnea. The NDRB determined his sleep apnea did not mitigate or cause his misconduct. Though the Applicant may feel that sleep apnea was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record reflects willful misconduct that demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, medical and service record entries, 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 | MD1201310

    Original file (MD1201310.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. 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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02360

    Original file (PD-2013-02360.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The examiner opined that the CI’s condition was stable and his functional status depended on his getting a restful night’s sleep using the CPAP or Bi-PAP machine which was variable.The second commander’s statementdocumented that the CI’s medical condition prevented him from engaging in both soldering and MOS related tasks as he was unable to sleep without a CPAP or BI-PAP device by his side and his medical condition adversely impacted his unit’s readiness. RECOMMENDATION : The Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01039

    Original file (PD 2012 01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A CPAP machine was ordered and the examiner changed the profile to a P-4 profile. There is no evidence of a PEB document for review in this case; however, the Board was able to confirm that the CI was separated for OSA and received severance pay. In consideration of this evidence, and IAW DODI 6040.44, the Board must recommend a separation rating of 50% for the OSA condition.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801967

    Original file (ND0801967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.Youth and immaturity and personal problems mitigated to his misconduct 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. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801311

    Original file (ND0801311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Due to the nature of these violations the NDRB determined the awarded characterization was appropriate and an upgrade 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, not responsive to the issues you raised, or...

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001827

    Original file (MD1001827.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 . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902115

    Original file (ND0902115.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps or any other of the Armed Forces, and is not authorized to change a reenlistment code.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01581

    Original file (PD-2013-01581.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The examiner noted some mild swelling and minimal tenderness below the patella with a “tendency to sublux medially” and the CI was given a soft knee brace with a patella cut–out.At the MEB examination on17 June 2004, 6...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501254

    Original file (ND0501254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the Applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174D. No indication of appeal in the record.031028: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00905

    Original file (PD2012 00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Separation Date: 20060420 The CI continued to require CPAP for the severe OSA. Providing orders showing that the individual was retired with permanent disability effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay.