Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201716
Original file (ND1201716.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-BU3, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20120807
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)        19990721 - 19990729     Active:            19990730 - 20070523

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20070524     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120308      Highest Rank/Rate: BU2
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 15 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 45
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 5 )      Behavior: 3.80 ( 5 )       OTA: 3.71

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      JSAM (3) (2)

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20111130 :      Article (Assault , 3 specifications )
         Specification 1: Unlawfully “push” a female Detective in the chest
         Specification 2: Unlawfully strike a Newport News Police Sergeant in the face twice with a closed fist
         Specification 3: Unlawfully strike a Master Police Officer in the face with a closed fist
         Article (General A rticle - disorderly conduct, drunkenness)
         Awarded: Suspended: Suspension vacated 20120113

S CM :    SPCM:    Retention Warning Counseling :

CIVIL ARREST:

- 20100923 :       Charges: Possession of crack cocaine and possession of a firearm. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20120820.]
- 20110811 :       Charges: Assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20120820.]
- 20111214 :       Charges: Assault and battery . [Extracted from Commanding Officer’s letter dated 20120820.] The charge of assault and battery was dismissed. [Extracted from U. S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service report dated 2012 0131 .]

C C :

- 20120307 :       Offense: Assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest
         Sentence : Confinement

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ 1999 07 30 ”
         “ 12 06 19 ”
         “ CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM       990730 UNTIL 070523 ”
         “ 99DEC18-00JAN02 ”

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 128 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends he was discharged on the assumption he would be convicted of felony assault , a charge that was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor .

Decision

Date : 20 1 3 0521             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 in his current enlistment included three civil arrests, one civilian conviction, and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Assault , 3 specifications : Specification 1: Unlawfully “push” a female Detective in the chest , Specification 2: Unlawfully strike a Newport News Police Sergeant in the face twice with a closed fist , and Specification 3: Unlawfully strike a Master Police Officer in the face with a closed fist ) and Article (General A rticle - disorderly conduct, drunkenness) . Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. 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 .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was discharged on the assumption he would be convicted of felony assault, a charge that was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor. 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 Applicant’s commanding officer did not improperly process the Applicant for separation based upon the assumption that he would be convicted of a felony. Rather, he properly processed the Applicant based upon the preponderance of the evidence that he committed a civilian offense that equated to a serious military offense. The Applicant’s subsequent misdemeanor conviction confirms that the Applicant committed a crime that could have resulted in a punitive court-martial. The Applicant was provided the opportunity to present his case before an administrative board, but he waived that right, thus accepting the discharge recommended in the letter of notification. 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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023518

    Original file (20110023518.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant further states he was court-martialed, but only for assault and battery, not aggravated assault; there was no felony conviction. on the head with his fist * although he was charged with "unlawfully grab B.M. The applicant was charged with the above five assaults and was tried before a general court-martial on 23 February 2005.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013342

    Original file (20130013342.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that the Board overturn the denial decision by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) to correct information in the CID files. The applicant states: a. The record he is appealing is a record of showing convictions, not titling.

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00228

    Original file (MD00-00228.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Supplementary Action & Special Court-Martial Order Number 79-94 dtd 11 May 94Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive: USMCR(J) 881230 - 890710 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 890710 Date of Discharge: 940531 Length of Service (years,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600934

    Original file (ND0600934.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Decisional Issues Equity – Isolated incident Documentation In addition to the service and medical records, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4) PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010327 - 20010615ELS USNR...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600993

    Original file (MD0600993.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-, USMC MD06-00993Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060718Characterization of Service: Narrative Reason for Separation: misconduct-pattern of misconduct (ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE BOARD REQUIRED BUT WAIVED)Discharge Authority: MARCORSEPMAN 6210.3Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: HQSVCBN FMFPAC CAMp SMitH HIApplicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Review Requested: Representation: Decision: Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00056

    Original file (ND00-00056.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AZAR, USN Docket No. In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, the applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Naval Council of Personnel Boards Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board 720 Kennon Street SE Rm309 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

  • USMC | DRB | 2000_Marine | MD00-00936

    Original file (MD00-00936.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board found that although the applicant may have received letters of recommendation, the applicant’s misconduct outweighed these good aspects of service. The Board will not grant relief on the basis of this issue.In response to the applicant’s issues 5 and 6, the Board found that the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00849

    Original file (MD03-00849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to SECRETARY AUTHORITY. I was in the Marine Corps for five years and nine months and in only four week’s as a drill instructor in platoon 2082 that was all thrown all away. Since my separation from the Marine Corps I have obtained a job and I have put all the knowledge and discipline that I...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500193

    Original file (ND1500193.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 remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000550

    Original file (20140000550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's UOTHC discharge to an honorable or a general discharge and a change to his RE code to a "1" or "2." The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army with a UOTHC discharge. Neither the applicant nor counsel have provided sufficient evidence to show that the applicant's discharge should be upgraded.