Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201337
Original file (ND1201337.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AM3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120604
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)        20030320 - 20030715     Active:            20030716 - 20070222

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20070223     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20090529      Highest Rank/Rate: AM 2
Length of Service: Y ear s M onth s 07 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 63
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.3 ( 5 )      Behavior: 2.8 ( 4 )        OTA: 3.61
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :    S CM :   SPCM:   CIVIL ARREST:   C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20080522 :       For failure to meet physical readiness test standards.

- 20090226 :       Details N ot Found in Record [Date extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20090520.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 030716 UNTIL 070222 ”

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 :        


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends he is innocent and was young and immature.
2.       The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants a n upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 0314             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 proprie ty. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and no misconduct resulting in non-judicial punishment or court-martial. The records reflect the Applicant was arrested by civil authorities for an alleged sexual battery on a 15 year old girl. The Applicant was administratively processed for separation by his command based on his admission to the alleged charges and the seriousness of the misconduct. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board .

The Applicant provided no additional documentation for the NDRB’s consideration or to rebut the Government’s presumption of regularity that was not already documented in his official military record of service and medical record.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he i s innocent and was young and immature. The record reflects the Applicant was discharge d as a result of being arrested by civil authorities for an alleged sexual battery. This type of misconduct is considered a serious offense , and a servicemember may be processed for separation for the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the offense or a closely related offense is a violation of the UCMJ and warrants a punitive discharge in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial. There is no requirement for adjudication by judicial or non-judicial proceedings, but the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, while the Applicant may feel his youth and immaturity were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. The NDRB recognizes that many of our servicemembers are young at the time they enlist for service, however, most still manage to serve honorably. While some members may be less mature than others, the NDRB does not view a member’s claim of immaturity to be a mitigating factor or a sufficient reason for misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his in-service conduct warrants an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The Applicant received an Honorable characterization for his first enlistment from July 2003 to February 2007. Each period of enlistment is an independent obligation and characterization is determined for that specific period of time. During his second enlistment, th e 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 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.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 23, effective 12 June 2008 until 9 November 2009, 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 120 .


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 | 2015_Marine | MD1500825

    Original file (MD1500825.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. Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1501104

    Original file (ND1501104.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a careful review of the Applicant’s length of service, the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s misconduct, the Applicant’s voluntary surrender to military authorities, evidence that the Applicant did not have counsel during the administrative separation process, and his post-service conduct, the NDRB determined that partial relief was warranted to upgrade his discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions). Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500779

    Original file (MD1500779.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 BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500700

    Original file (ND1500700.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he entered the United States Navy on 25 March 2008 at age 18, and was administratively discharged from the Navy during entry level training after 73 days on 5 June 2008 with Uncharacterized discharge for reason of Erroneous Entry. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1102018

    Original file (ND1102018.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/To Congress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1201402

    Original file (MD1201402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ” 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. Reenlistment/RE-code : Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500904

    Original file (ND1500904.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 IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100369

    Original file (MD1100369.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1100643

    Original file (MD1100643.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE.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 include evidence submitted by the Applicant.The...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500449

    Original file (MD1500449.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore no two cases, no matter how similar, are guaranteed to receive the same punishment. 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 BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in...