Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401086
Original file (ND1401086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FCSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140513
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)        19980512 - 19980617     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 19980618     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20011207      Highest Rank/Rate: FC2
Length of Service: Y ear( s ) M onth( s ) 20 D a y ( s )
 Education Level: +       AFQT: 84
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 4 )        OTA: 2.57

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of C ONF :

NJP :

- 20010329 :      Article (Absence without leave)
         Article (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer)
         Awarded: Suspended: 1 MONTH Suspension vacated 20010818

- 20010818 :      Article (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer)
          Article (Provoking speeches or gestures) 3 specifications
         Article 128 (Assault)
          Awarded: Suspended:

S CM :    SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling :

- 20010329 :       For absence without leave and insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer.

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

          “ ”

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:                  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 22, effective 15 December 1998 until 21 August 2002,
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 his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident.
2.       The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he was only trying to break up a fight and was not guilty o f assault.

Decision

Date : 20 1 4 1001             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) warning, and for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 ( Absence without leave ), Article 91 ( Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer ), Article 89 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer), Article 117 (Provoking speeches and gestures; 3 specifications), and Article 128 ( Assault ) . Based on the offense(s) 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, and submit a written statement, but waived his right to request an administrative board .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a single isolated incident. In order to meet the requirements for administrative separation for a pattern of misconduct, the Applicant must have at least two instances of misconduct and one retention warning counselling on record. The Applicant was found guilty at NJP in March 2001 for violation of absence without leave, and insubordinate conduct; received a written retention warning counseling at the same NJP; and was found guilty at NJP in August 2001 for violations of willfully disobeying a commissioned officer, three specifications of provoking speeches and gestures, and assault. The Applicant’s record clearly shows that he was not sep arated for an isolated incident, but was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. The NDRB determined the Applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable as issued, and no changes are warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable because he was only trying to break up a fight and was not guilty o f assault. The Applicant’s record shows that he was found guilty at NJP for assault, provoking speeches and gestures, and willfully disobeying a commissioned officer. The Applicant’s record shows that a full investigation into the incident was made by the command, and statements were taken by witnesses to the incident. The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was innocent of the charges against him. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

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

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801201

    Original file (MD0801201.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Suspended: SCM: SPCM: CC: Retention Warning Counseling: - 19900504: For continued failure to be at section on time- 19900604: For not being at his appointed place of duty, barracks 574 working party on 19910521 - 1990109: For violation of UCMJ Article 91, disrespect to an NCO- 19920106: For continued misconduct and poor performance NDRB Documentary Review Conducted (date): 20000622 NDRB Documentary Review Docket Number: MD00-00091 NDRB Documentary Review Findings: NO CHANGE WARRANTED Types...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001893

    Original file (ND1001893.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. Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301216

    Original file (MD1301216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300852

    Original file (ND1300852.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.Summary:...

  • USMC | DRB | 2014_Marine | MD1400292

    Original file (MD1400292.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of service included 6105 counseling warning, for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer, 1 specification), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, 1 specification), Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation, 2 specifications), Article 112 (Drunk on duty, 1 specification), Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures, 1...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101600

    Original file (ND1101600.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that clemency based on this issue was not warranted. 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 .Since fifteen years from the date of the Applicant’s discharge have elapsed, he is not eligible for a personal appearance hearing with...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002261

    Original file (ND1002261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of making a former service member eligible to receive the GI Bill or enhancing educational 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200699

    Original file (ND1200699.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks to improve his employment opportunities. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900781

    Original file (ND0900781.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : The Applicant is seeking an upgrade to Honorable to obtain employment with the government/military. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100877

    Original file (ND1100877.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. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or...