Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301399
Original file (ND1301399.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EM2, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130614
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)        19990625 - 20000612     Active:            20000613 - 20021031

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20021101     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20061023      Highest Rank/Rate: EM1
Length of Service: Years Months 23 D ays
Education Level:        AFQT: 84
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 4.0 ( 5 )      Behavior: 3.2 ( 5 )        OTA: 3.51

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

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20060622 :      Article (Forgery)
         Article (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or other without sufficient funds)
         Article (General A rticle - Making and uttering worthless check by dishonorably failing to maintain funds)
          Awarded: ORAL Suspended:

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

NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date):        20080430
NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number:   ND08-00560
NDRB Documentary Review Findings:                 Proper as issued and that no change is warranted.
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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 11 June 2008, 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 123, 123a, 134 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends he was separated due to family obligations vice separated due to misconduct.
2.       The Applicant contends his overall in-service conduct and performance warrants an upgrade to Honorable.
3.       The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 0327             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 standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included for o f the Uniform Code of Military Just ice (UCMJ): Article 123 ( Forgery), 123a (Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or other without sufficient funds), and Article 134 (General A rticle, making or uttering worthless check by dishonorably failing to maintain funds). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the proce dure, the Applicant exercised right to consult with a qualified counsel, but waived his right s to submit a statement and r equest an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was separated due to fa mily obligations vice separated due to misconduct. After a though review of the Applicant’s record, the NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge process ing for Misconduct (Serious Offense) was proper in accord ance with applicable directives . In accordance with the Naval Military Personnel Manual, servicemembers 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 r elated offense. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP of violating UCMJ Articles 123, 123a, and 134 , which are considered serious offenses per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial . The testimony and documents provided by the Applicant do not refute the presumption of regularity in this case. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his overall in-service conduct and performance warrants an upgrade to Honorable. The Applicant cited his performance and conduct as evidenced by his evaluation reports prior to his NJP and subsequent separation from the Naval Service . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB discerned no impropriety in the discharge action but did discern an inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. Based on the Applicant’s quality of service prior to his isolated act of misconduct and the mitigating factors of his misconduct, t he NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable and change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Relief granted.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his post-service conduct warrants consideration for an upgrade to Honorable. After a careful review of the Applicant’s post-service documentation and official service records, and taking into consideration his testimony, and the facts and circumstances unique to this case, the NDRB determined relief is warranted based on equitable grounds. The NDRB voted unanimously to upgrade the characterization of service to Honorable and change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Relief granted.




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 change to . The Applicant is not eligible for further reviews from the NDRB. The Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records, 701 South Courthouse Road, Suite 1001, Arlington, VA 22204-2490 for further review using DD Form 149. Their website can be found at http://www.donhq.navy.mil/bcnr/bcnr.htm.


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 | 2008_Navy | ND0800560

    Original file (ND0800560.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600214

    Original file (ND0600214.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions) and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed. The separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600495

    Original file (MD0600495.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Copy 4)Response to Request for Separation Documents/InformationLetter from Applicant, dated January 7, 2006 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700070

    Original file (MD0700070.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the Applicant’s record, issues submitted, and post service accomplishments, the Board determined that clemency was not warranted and that the sentence awarded the Applicant at his court-martial, as approved, was appropriate for the offenses he committed.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. ...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900237

    Original file (MD0900237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After reviewing the Applicants record of service and his post service efforts since his discharge from the Marine Corps, the Board has determined his post service efforts were 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, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, theBoard found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00149

    Original file (ND04-00149.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Forfeiture of $100.00 for 2 months suspended at Commanding Officer’s NJP dated 930527 is hereby remitted.930629: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order, violation of UCMJ, Article 123A: Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft or order without sufficient funds. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000801

    Original file (ND1000801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service includednon-judicial punishment (NJP) for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 80 (Attempts, attempted to purchase items without sufficient funds in bank account), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence, 19970314-19970317), Article 123a (Making, drawing, uttering check without sufficient funds; 3 Specifications), Article 134 (Dishonorably failing to pay debt), and Article 134 (Altering public record).When notified of administrative separation...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800949

    Original file (MD0800949.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: - Record of Trial from 10 May & 6 July 2001 Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe): DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100254

    Original file (ND1100254.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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 .Since 15 years...

  • USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101218

    Original file (MD1101218.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. ” 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.