Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300725
Original file (ND1300725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABHAA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130208
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)        20030226 - 20040406     Active:   20040407 - 20081016 HON

Pre-Service Drug Waiver:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20081017     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20110408      Highest Rank/Rate: ABH3
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 22 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 50
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.4 ( 5 )      Behavior: 1.6 ( 5 )        OTA: 2.14

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:

- 20100324 :      Article (Assault consummated by a battery)
         Article (General A rticle, drunk and disorderly)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20110105 :      Article (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances , marijuana )
         Awarded: Susp ended:

SCM:     SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20100324 :       For violation of UCMJ Article 128 ( A ssault consummated by a battery) and Article 134 ( Drunk and disorderly)

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 040407 UNTIL 081016 ”
         “ ”
        
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. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 10 November 2009 until Present, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.
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 Applicant contends there was no evidence for either of his misconduct incidents .
2 .       The Applicant contends his command acted improperly throughout his tour at Rota and during his separation proceedings .
3 .       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade.
Decision

Date: 20 1 3 1030             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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warning and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled substances, marijuana), Article 128 (Assault consummated by a battery), and Article 134 (General A rticle, drunk and disorderly). The Applicant a pre-service drug waiver for using marijuana prior to entering the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant rights to consult with a qualified coun sel, submit a written statement , and request an administrative board . The Applicant was notified of separation proceedings for Pattern of Misconduct and Drug Abuse. The administrative board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported a Pattern of Misconduct and M isconduct (Drug Abuse). The administrative board voted 3-0 to recommend separation and 2-1 to recommend a characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Separation Authority concurred with the board’s findings and discharged the Applicant Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for Misconduct (Drug Abuse).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends there was no evidence for either of his misconduct incidents . The Manual for Courts-Martial United States, Part V, indicates the rules of evidence, other than with respect to privileges, do not apply at Captain’s Mast proceedings. Therefore, hearsay evidence is permissible , and the Applicant’s contention that his Captain’s Masts were based on hearsay and not on evidence has no merit. His commanding officer only needed to have a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the assault, was drunk and disorderly, and wrongfully used marijuana. T he Applicant has not presented any documentation to prove his commanding officer disregarded relevant information or failed to comply with applicable regulations during the NJP proceedings. After a complete review of the records and the Applicant’s detailed statement, the NDRB determined he was properly found guilty of violating UCMJ Articles 112a, 128, and 134 at two NJPs, was properly processed for administrative separation, and warranted an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions characterization of service for his second enlistment. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command acted improperly throughout his tour at Rota and during his separation proceedings. The record contained no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Applicant’s commanding officer , chief, or anyone else during his tour at Rota or during the discharge process. In fact, the record shows his command leniently allowed him to remain in service after his first NJP for assault and drunk and disorderly conduct. The finding of guilt for assault warranted administrative separation. However, his command allowed him to continue his service. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary. The record of evidence clearly shows the Applicant waived his rights to trial by court-martial and accepted NJP on two occasions . If the Applicant felt he was mistakenly charged with a crime, it was his obligation to contest those charges at the time they were made. The Applicant exercise d his right to mount a defense against the charges at a separation board. The board voted 3-0 that the preponderance of the evidence supported a Pattern of Misconduct and Drug Abuse . The Applicant submitted no evidence to support his contention s other than his statement. After a complete review of the records and his statement, the NDRB determined his discharge was warranted, proper, and equitable. Relief denied.

 : (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants an upgrade. The NDRB considers 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. The Applicant provided a personal sta tement and one character reference. The Applicant could have provided documentation as detailed in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum , however, completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service conduct establishes that the in-service misconduct was an aberration. The Board determined the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501082

    Original file (ND0501082.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Furthermore, the record documents an unadjudicated violation of the UCMJ Article 86 (unauthorized absence in excess of 30 days, 204 days) prior to his discharge in absentia. The names, and votes of the members of the 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00083

    Original file (ND03-00083.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214. 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 (C, D, and E).Issue 1. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900309

    Original file (ND0900309.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.Besides the Applicant DD Form 293 and personal letter, no documentation was provided for review. Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900025

    Original file (ND0900025.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” to better his life. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the numerous and varied UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.Should the Applicant obtain additional...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801439

    Original file (ND0801439.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB advises the Applicant that despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Navy in order to maintain proper order and discipline.However, in the Applicant case, the evidence reflects he committed numerous offenses during this enlistment, thus contradicting his allegation the discharge is based on one isolated incident.The Applicant's misconduct is documented in his service record, which is marred by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000939

    Original file (ND1000939.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...

  • 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 | 2008_Marine | MD0800784

    Original file (MD0800784.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Furthermore, the NDRB notes the Applicant’s previous request for clemency filed on 22 November 2004 does not mention PTSD as the basis for that clemency request. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service and Medical Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, t

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700041

    Original file (MD0700041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Record of service. Certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the Naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline.The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warning, one nonjudicial punishment for Articles 117, 128, and 134, and a guilty finding and sentence at a Special Court-Martial for Articles 128 and 134. SJA review (date): Separation Authority (date): NOT FOUND IN RECORD Basis for discharge directed: NOT FOUND IN...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00135

    Original file (ND01-00135.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00135 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 001113, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. Review of medical records indicates request for final psychiatric evaluation and disposition with Axis I: adjustment disorder with repressed mood and R/O paranoid personality disorder. The applicant did not provide any of these documents.