Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300849
Original file (ND1300849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-AA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130312
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)        20020329 - 20020421     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20020422     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20051006      Highest Rank/Rate: AN
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 01 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 32
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.8 ( 4 )      Behavior: 1.8 ( 5 )        OTA: 2.70

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

Periods of UA /C ONF : UA : 20050725- 20050807, 13 days / CONF:

NJP :

- 20050825 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Insubordinate c onduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

-        20030702: Failure to meet body fat assessment and physical readiness standards.
-        20031110: Failure to meet body fat assessment and physical readiness standards.

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 wants to use education benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
2.       The Applicant contends an undiagnosed knee injury caused him to be unable to meet physical standards.
 3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for 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. 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 standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, four failures of the Navy’s Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) standards in two years, and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave , 13 days) and Article 91 ( Insubordinate c onduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ) . Based on the Applicant’s failure to meet PFA standards , command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel and submit a written statement . The Applicant was not entitl ed to an administrative board.

: (Nondecisional) The Applicant wants to use education benefits from the VA. T here is no requirement, or law, that grants re-characterization solely on the issue of facilitating access to VA benefits. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing educational opportunities or employment opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review solely to a determination of the propriety and the equity of a discharge. As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.
: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends an undiagnosed knee injury caused him to be unable to meet physical standards. The Applicant submitted a statement from the VA saying that he is 20% disabled for service-connected causes, but it does not specify what those causes are. According to the Applicant’s service record, he entered the Navy in April 2002 weighing 185 pounds. In July 2003, the Applicant failed his first PFA and weighed 296 pounds with a body fat percentage of 36% . By November 2003, the Applicant failed his second PFA and weighed 310 pounds with a body fat percentage of 40%. The Applicant’s Commanding Officer reported that in August 2005, the Applicant’s body fat percentage had increased to 42%. There is no evidence in the record, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence, to support his contention that an undiagnosed knee injury was the cause of his failure to meet physical standards while in service . A physical injury is not a sufficient excuse for failure to maintain PFA standards. Discharges from the Navy for failure of Physical Standards are Honorable unless a General is warranted. With the NJP for violation of UCMJ Articles 86 and 91 , he warranted a General discharge. Relief denied.

Issue 3: (Decisional) (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for 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 statement and a 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 conduct was an aberration. T he Board determined the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service conduct was an aberration. 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 12, effective 3 August 2005 until 16 January 2007, MILPERSMAN Article 1910-170, SEPARATION BY REASON OF PHYSICAL FITNESS ASSESSMENT FAILURE .

B. NAVADMIN 180/05, 271525Z JUL 05, PHYSICAL READINESS PROGRAM.

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 .



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 | 2014_Marine | MD1400220

    Original file (MD1400220.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance by failing to achieve Marine Corps weight and body fat percentage standards, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301692

    Original file (MD1301692.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 | 2010_Navy | ND1001160

    Original file (ND1001160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Member failed multiple body fat composition measurements, physical readiness tests, physical fitness assessments, and fails to attend numerous assigned fitness enhancement program sessions.... Due to member’s multiple failures and unwillingness to participate in programs designed to assist her, I strongly recommend separation under General Under Honorable Conditions.” Based on all the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s in-service performance and conduct and with no evidence to...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901360

    Original file (MD0901360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20030924 - 20040426 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040427Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: Years Months Date of Discharge: 20060921 Highest Rank: Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s)26 Day(s)Education Level: AFQT: 34 MOS: 0161 Proficiency/Conduct Marks (# of occasions): () / () Fitness Reports: Awards and Decorations (per DD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401157

    Original file (MD1401157.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Based on the Applicant’s unsatisfactory performance on BCP, command administratively processed for separation. ” 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.

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1401194

    Original file (MD1401194.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01179

    Original file (MD02-01179.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Handwritten statement from Applicant, dated June 26, 2002 Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as claimant's representative, dated July 1, 2002 (3 copies) Applicant's DD Form 214 (2 copies) Eighty pages from Applicant's service record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: None Inactive:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901895

    Original file (MD0901895.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined the Applicant was not separated for medical reasons but for failure to meet assigned weight and body fat standards.The Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 August 1995 to 31 August 2001, however, does allow for an Honorable discharge for servicemembers separated for unsatisfactory performance (paragraph 6206).After a review of the Applicant’s service record, the NDRB did find that his service met the standard for honorable conduct. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800018

    Original file (ND0800018.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After assuring compliance with MILPERSMAN 1910-170 the separation authority directed the Applicant’s discharge by reason of physical standards with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). The Applicant’s conduct reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade in his characterization of service. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400777

    Original file (ND1400777.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the NDRB discerned no impropriety and the Applicant’s separation for Physical Standards was proper.However, per Naval Military Personnel Manual Article 1910-170, the characterization of service for separation due to Physical Standards should be Honorable unless a General is warranted. Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall but the narrative reason for separation shall remain.The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen...