Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301422
Original file (ND1301422.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MMFA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20130628
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)        20040430 - 20050222     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20050223     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20080208      Highest Rank/Rate: MM3
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 16 D a y ( s )
 Education Level:        AFQT: 99
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 2.3 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.3 ( 3 )        OTA: 2.56

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 20070507 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (False official statements)
         Awarded: Suspended:

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

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 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 s 9 2 and 107 .


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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.        The Applicant contends he was refused counsel , unable to t ell his side of the story , and not allowed to show any proof.
2.       The Applicant contends psychiatric problems led to his misconduct.
3 .       The Applicant contends his command unfairly expedited his discharge to keep him from qualifying for the GI Bill.
Decision

Date : 20 1 4 0130             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 for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 107 (False official statements). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends he was refused counsel, unable to tell his side of the story, and not allowed to show any proof. Other than the Applicant’s statement indicating he was refused counsel, unable to tell his side of the story, an d not allowed to show any proof, he provided no evidence to support his contention and his statement alone is not enough to refute the presumption of regularity. What is in the record is a finding of guilt at NJP for violating UCMJ Articles 92 and 107, both of which are considered serious offenses per Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial and warrant a punitive discharge (i.e., Bad Conduct) if adjudicated at a Special Court-Martial. Since the command adjudicated the misconduct at NJP, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to find guilt. There is nothing in the record to show that his command acted improperly during the NJP or administrative discharge process. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends psychiatric problems led to his misconduct. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. However, the NDRB does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition or diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to excuse the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his command unfairly expedited his discharge to keep him from qualifying for the GI Bill. The NDRB presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The record clearly shows the Applicant was “counterproductive to the good order and discipline of the Submarine Force and U. S. Navy…. His continued disruptive nature and disrespectful demeanor are a detriment to all who work around him. B ased upon [his] unacceptable personal and professional behavior, he is unsuitable for continued Naval Service.” The NDRB concluded the Applicant’s misconduct and disruptive behavior clearly warranted separation and further determined his command acted properly during the discharge process. 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 15 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 | 2007_Navy | ND0701071

    Original file (ND0701071.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Date: 20080117Location:Washington D.C Representation: Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge 20041204: Applicant completes ASAM Level .5 – IMPACT. 20060126: Applicant reduced in rank from SA to SR20060207: Medical Record: Alcohol and Drug Screening Report:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500311

    Original file (MD1500311.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As such, this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the NDRB can grant relief.The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically, the paragraph regarding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), who determine eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. Regarding the July 2013 Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) NJP charges for plagiarism, the Applicant stated that he had not correctly attributed the original author in both his letter to the...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801945

    Original file (MD0801945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade based on youth and immaturity would be inappropriateThe NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200238

    Original file (ND1200238.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/To Congress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Relief denied.Issue 4:...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201828

    Original file (ND1201828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends his discharge was improper, because one cannot waive his right to an administrative board while in custody in a civilian prison. The evidence of record also reflects 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201880

    Original file (ND1201880.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specification 2: An Apple I-Pod, of a value of $500.00 or less, the property of ______, a civilian.Sentence: 60 days (20110104 -20110210, 37 days), FOP 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902607

    Original file (ND0902607.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the Applicant’s civil conviction, command administratively processed for separation. While not entered as issues for this hearing, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records regarding his desire to have his re-entry code and rank changed on his DD Form 214.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500551

    Original file (ND1500551.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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700840

    Original file (ND0700840.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant claims that she lied about having a homosexual marriage because she did not want to be in California and desired to completely leave the military, so she “conjured up a story about…being in a homosexual relationship.” Separation processing is mandatory if the commanding officer believes, based on credible information, that the service member has committed homosexual conduct. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401691

    Original file (ND1401691.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Accordingly, the NDRB determined that the Applicant’s characterization should read: “UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL).” 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 HONORABLE CONDITIONS...