Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201049
Original file (ND1201049.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120410
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)        20070315 - 20070424     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20070425     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20090505      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth 11 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 86
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP : S CM :     SPCM:    CC: Retention Warning Counseling :

CIVIL ARREST:

- 20081124 :       Charges: Sexual ass au lt with an underage female

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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 11 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, Article 1910-144, Separation by Reason of Misconduct - Civilian Conviction.

B. 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 120 .
C . 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 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded him 70% disability after his discharge.
 2 .        The Applicant contends he warrants an Honorable discharge , because he won his court case 6 months after being separated.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0212             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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included no NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in non-judicial punishment or court-martial. The Applicant was administratively processed for separation by his command due to Misconduct (C ivilian C onviction ) as evidence d by the Connecticut Superior Court a djudication dated 24 November 2008 involving deviant sexual behavior. Based on the offense committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel and request an administrative board , but waived his right to submit a written statement . T he Administrative Separation Board (ASB) determined by a unanimous vote (3-0) that the preponderance of evidence supported the alleged acts or omissions in the notification and recommended the Applicant be separated from the Navy with a General ( Under Honorable Conditions ) characterization. The S eparati on A uthority approved the ASB’s recommendation s and ordered the Applicant to be discharged .

Issue 1: ( D ecisional) (Propriety/Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends the VA awarded him 70% disability after his discharge. The NDRB is not bound by VA decisions, nor do VA decisions have any bearing on the decisions of the NDRB. D ecisions reached by the VA to determine if former servicemembers rate certain VA benefits do not affect previous discharge decisions made by the Navy. 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 determining a member’s discharge characterization. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s VA disability rating has no bearing on the propriety or equity of his discharge for Misconduct (Civil Conviction) with a General characterization of service. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he warrants an Honorable discharge because he won his court case 6 months after being separated from the Navy. The Applicant submitted a court document that shows he was arrested for two offenses that occurred on or about 10 November 2007. On 8 August 2008, bond was set and a protection order was issued. On 24 November 2008, a motion for an Acc elerated Rehabilitation Program was approved. Nowhere in the document submitted by the Applicant does it show that he was declared not guilty of committing the offenses. Documentation in the Applicant’s service record from the Separation Authority (Commander, Naval Submarine School) indicates the Applicant was placed into an Accelerated Rehabilitation Program for a period of 1 year and was allowed no contact with or harassment of the victim in order to complete counseling. On February 2, 2009, the Applicant’s command notified him of administrative separation processing for Misconduct (Civil Conviction). After the Applicant elected to appear before an ASB, one was held on 24 March 2009. The ASB found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the basis for separation and recommended separation from the Navy with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization. The Separation Authority reviewed the findings of the board and the facts of the case and ordered the Applicant to be discharged as recommended. After a complete review of the facts and circumstances of this case, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was warranted for Misconduct (Civil Conviction) and a characterization of General (Under Honorable Conditions) was 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200067

    Original file (ND1200067.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his record of service warrants an upgrade. The civilian conviction provided the preponderance of the evidence that he committed a serious offense, he elected an ASB, the ASB determined he committed the offenses and recommended a General discharge, and the Separation Authority reviewed the findings and ordered the Applicant to be discharged. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101078

    Original file (MD1101078.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, testimony, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined that the standard of preponderance of evidence was not met at the ASB and that relief was warranted. Relief granted.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, testimony, and discharge process, the Board found the discharge was improper.Based on facts and circumstances unique...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002196

    Original file (ND1002196.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000210

    Original file (ND1000210.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Therefore, based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000978

    Original file (ND1000978.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks a change in his RE-code in order to reenlist into the Armed Forces.2. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001800

    Original file (ND1001800.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends his Administrative Separation Board (ASB) proceeding was not recorded. ” 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 | 2012_Marine | MD1201040

    Original file (MD1201040.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200369

    Original file (ND1200369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He specifically contends that his defense counsel stated to Navy Personnel Command that if they did not approve the ASB’s recommendation for a suspended separation, then a request for a new ASB would be required before they characterized his service as 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301031

    Original file (ND1301031.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, medical and 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 is not eligible for further reviews from the NDRB. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201185

    Original file (ND1201185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB conducted a thorough review of the Applicant’s DD Form 293 and the documentation he submitted in support of his contentions, his service record, the ASB proceedings, letter of deficiency, and Separation Authority’s decision and determined there was no impropriety or inequity in the Applicant’s discharge process, his characterization of service, or the Narrative Reason for Separation. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the...