Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301198
Original file (ND1301198.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-ABHAR, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130513
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)        20080826 - 20090302     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20090303     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20110112      Highest Rank/Rate: ABHAA
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 09 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 50
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.84

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20100822 :      Article (Provoking speech or gestures, 1 specification)
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20101 0 25 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications )
         Specification 1: Dereliction of duty by smoking in an unauthorized space.
         Specification 2: Wrongful use of Spice.
         Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    CIVIL ARREST:             C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20100515 :      For UCMJ Article 117 violation, provoking speech or gestures.

- 20100828 :      For USS Enterprise CVN-65, Navy Drug Policy

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ ”
          “ PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, PERS-312A, 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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        

Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 29, effective 10 November 2009 until Present, Article 1910-140, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.
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 h e did not receive due process during the separation proceedings.

Decision

Date: 20 1 3 1204             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. 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 sta ndards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications) and Article 117 ( Provoking speech or gestures, 1 specification. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board . The A dministrative Separation B oard voted 3-0 that the Applicant had committed a pattern of misconduct and recommended a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions for a Pattern of Misconduct . The Separation Authority concurred and ordered the Applicant to be discharged.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he did not receive due process during the separation proceedings. During the Applicant’s 1 year and 10 months of service, he received two retention warnings and was found guilty of violating several UCMJ articles at two NJPs. With his misconduct, he met the requirements for administrative separation for Misconduct (Serious Offense), Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct), and Misconduct (Drug Abuse). After his second NJP, his command notified him of administrative separation processing, and he elected to exercise his rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement to the Separation Authority, and appear before an Administrative Separation Board. After presenting his case before the board, they voted unanimously that the Applicant had committed a serious offense and a pattern of misconduct and recommended separation Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. The Applicant’s counsel submitted a Letter of Deficiency after the board in which he contend ed the positive testimony of two supporting character references w ere not taken into account during the administrative separation hearing. The Commanding Officer’s recommendation for separation memo , d ated 14 D ecember 2010 , contained the following statement in response to the Applicant’s contention : “According to Counsel for Respondent, these questionnaires indicated that ABHAR H_ is a respectful, honorable, dependable, and trustworthy Sailor who is considered the ‘ go to guy. ’ Notwithstanding the fact that some members in ABHAR H_’s chain of command considered him in a positive light, the fact that the board members voted to find that he was smoking Spice in a fan room on the ship, while on restriction, was more than sufficient to support their decision to award an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. ” After a thorough review of the administrative separation process, the NDRB determined the Applicant was provided full due process, and his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge was warranted, 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

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100486

    Original file (ND1100486.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’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.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700369

    Original file (ND0700369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Awarded - FOP ($amount) for (months); RIR (paygrade); Restr for (# days); Extra duties (# days).20030319: Retention Warning for provoking speeches or gestures, assault, sub-standard performance as stated on NAVPERS 1610/2 dated 20011207-20020715, lack of responsibility, unsatisfactory demeanor/conduct, failure to live up to the Navy Core Values, unwillingness and/or inability to follow lawful orders and/or regulations, unwillingness and/or inability to work with others, failure to understand...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000476

    Original file (ND1000476.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 and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401086

    Original file (ND1401086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident.2. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900151

    Original file (ND0900151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has requested an upgrade in his discharge characterization to “Honorable”. The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member and was not indicative of those receiving an “Honorable” discharge characterization. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900861

    Original file (ND0900861.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Requesting an upgrade for reenlistment in the military. Furthermore, in the Commanding Officer’s letter of 04 October 2005, he stated, “[The Applicant’s] racist conduct and derogatory comments regarding ethnicity cannot be tolerated in the Navy.” The NDRB determined the Applicant met the requirements for an involuntary discharge for Pattern of Misconduct, and this issue does not rebut the awarded characterization of service and the reason for discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300995

    Original file (ND1300995.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Though his case did not warrant an expedited review in accordance with U.S. Code, Title X, Section 1553(d)(1), the NDRB included a Navy psychiatrist on the personal hearing board as a result of the MST PTSD.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. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801275

    Original file (ND0801275.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board noted, since discharge, the Applicant has demonstrated a strong commitment to community and excellence and determined his post service conduct was sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade to “General (Under Honorable Conditions).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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900294

    Original file (ND0900294.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the evidence, the NDRB determined the administrative separation was conducted properly and an upgrade in characterization would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. If a former member has...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300026

    Original file (MD1300026.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief 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 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. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...