Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201443
Original file (ND1201443.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABH2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120622
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      19960827 - 19970819 COG   Active:            19970820 - 20011008 HON
                                    USN      20011009 - 2009 1001 HON
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 2009 100 2     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120124      Highest Rank/Rate: ABH1
Length of Service: 02 Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 24 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.7 ( 3 )      Behavior: 3.0 ( 3 )        OTA: 3.14

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      (4) KCM (2) (4) (5)

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20111216 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (False official statements)
         Article (Assault)
         Article (General A rticle - Adultery)
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

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 970820 UNTIL 09 1001 ”
         “ 14 05 05 ”

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), Change 36, effective 18 August 2011 until Present, 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 s 107, 128, and 134 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1 .        The Applicant contends he was not given an administrative board.
2 .       The Applicant contends he was discharged on false accusations at his nonjudicial punishment ( NJP ) .
3 .       The Applicant contends he was charged with providing a false official statement but was never read his rights or signed a statement.
 4 .        The Applicant contends he was never charged with assault by San Diego County .
5 .        The Applicant contends the Navy did not have jurisdiction.
6 .        The Applicant contends his command did not help him with his family issues and instead used the information against him.
 7 .        The Applicant contends his adulterous relationship did not affect good honor or discipline.

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0410             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 Applicant’s record of service included NJP for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Absence without leave), Article (False official statements), Article (Assault), and Article (General A rticle - Adultery). 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 or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review . However, the Applicant has a separation code of HKQ on his DD Form 214, which indicates he waived his right to appear before an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was not given an administrative board. The NDRB was unable to review the Applicant’s discharge package, as it was not included in his official service record. The separation code on the Applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates the Applicant waived his administrative board . The NDRB presumed regularity in governmental affairs in that the Separation Authority and Staff Judge Advocate review of the discharge package ensured that the Applicant was afforded all of his administrative rights pursuant to the separation process. The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by t he NDRB. R elief denied.

Issues 2-3 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was discharged on false accusations at his NJP. Further, the Applicant contends he was charged with providing a false official statement but was never read his rights or signed a statement. The record contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone in the command or anyone else during the discharge process. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Applicant did not submit any documentation to rebut any presumption of regularity in governmental affairs by t he NDRB . Relief denied.

4 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was never charged with assault by San Diego County . In accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, s ervicemembers may be separated based on the commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the commanding officer believes the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and the offense would warrant a punitive discharge if adjudicated at trial by court-martial for the same or closely related offense. Commission of a serious offense does not require adjudication by nonjudicial or judicial proceedings or civilian conviction, however, the offense must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence. The statements and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case . In addition to the Article 128

(Assault) violation, the Applicant was also found guilty of violating Articles 107 and 134 , each of which are considered a serious offense and would warrant a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial . The NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was proper. Relief denied.

5 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends the Navy did not have jurisdiction. Article 2 of the UCMJ establishes jurisdiction over members of the regular components of the Armed Forces, and therefore, jurisdiction is not limited to a member’s location or duty status. Relief denied.

 6 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command did not help him with his family issues and instead used the information against him. The record contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s command or anyone else in the discharge process. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the discharge. Relief denied.

7 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his adulterous relationship did not affect good honor or discipline. The Applicant further contends that they were separated and neither of them were in the military. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP for violating Article 134 (Adultery). Therefore, it was determined that the Applicant wrongfully had sexual intercourse, the Applicant or the other person was married , and the conduct of the Applicant was to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s contentions are without merit , and 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 | 2015_Marine | MD1500010

    Original file (MD1500010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not warrant relief. 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801671

    Original file (ND0801671.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Supporting documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; 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 company’s or other financial institutions;...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401780

    Original file (MD1401780.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the offense(s) committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500323

    Original file (MD1500323.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301838

    Original file (ND1301838.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records and the Applicant’s statements and post-service medical documentation and disability rating, the NDRB determined her discharge was warranted and proper and sufficient mitigation had been given when assigning her a discharge characterization Under Honorable Conditions (General). ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301192

    Original file (ND1301192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his separation code is false. ” 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801757

    Original file (ND0801757.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge 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 does not otherwise comport...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500128

    Original file (MD1500128.rtf) Auto-classification: 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002192

    Original file (ND1002192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. 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 governmental affairs unless there is...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300728

    Original file (ND1300728.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...