Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401150
Original file (ND1401150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20140530
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:      
         Narrative Reason change to:       FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20110519 - 20110912     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20110913     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20120202      Highest Rank/Rate: SN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 20 D ay(s)
 Education Level:        AFQT: 56
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )      Behavior: 1.0 ( 2 )        OTA: 2.00

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :

- 20120119 :      Article (Failure to obey order or regulation)
         Article (Assault)
         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:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
         From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        








Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 36, effective 18 August 2011 until Present, 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 92 and 128 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends that his discharge is improper because he was in less than 180 days and should have been Entry Level Separation along with a narrative reason change.
2. The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because the command did not take into account that he was hazed.
3. The Applicant suggest that his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20 1 4 1009             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. The 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 Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 ( Failure to obey an order or regulation, 1 specification ), and Article 128 ( Assault , 1 specific ation ). Based on the offense(s) 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 that his discharge is improper because he was in less than 180 days and should have been Entry Level Separation along with a narrative reason change. The NDRB reviews the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge individually, on a case-by-case basis. If such a review reveals an impropriety or inequity, relief is in order. Regulations permit relief on impropriety grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval Service.

In accordance with MILPERSMAN 1910-154, SEPARATION BY REASON OF ENTRY LEVEL PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, Members may be separated for entry level performance and conduct when: a. in an entry level status (i.e., within first 180 days of continuous active duty (ACDU) on the date of notification of administrative separation (ADSEP) processing); and b. it is determined that members are unqualified for further Naval Service by reason of unsatisfactory performance and conduct as evidenced by incapability, lack of reasonable effort, failure to adapt to the naval environment, or minor disciplinary infractions. In the case of the Applicant, the NDRB did not find that he committed minor disciplinary infractions. Furthermore, the guidance does not say a member “must” but “may” be discharged with entry level performance and conduct when stipulation ( a ) and ( b ) are met. Therefore , the board determined that the Applicant was appropriately taken to NJP and found guilty of both Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and Article 128 (Assault). Both of these offenses are considered a serious offense and separation from the service was proper. Furthermore, the narrative reason for discharge should remain mis conduct (serious offense), as this is the proper narrative for members separated in accordance with for the discharge date of the Applicant. The NDRB determined that the discharge was proper and an y change would be inappropriate . Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because the command did not take into account that he was hazed as a mitigating factor. The government assumes 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 the command did not weigh all of the evidence that led to his NJP.
H azing is contrary to the Navy’s core values of Honor, Courage and Commitment, and is not tolerated in today’s modern naval services. The negative consequences of hazing are such that at the time of the hazing violations, SECNAVINST 1610.2 of 01OCT97 (DON Policy on Hazing) had been in effect for over seven years. The NDRB recognizes there is a range of activities defined as hazing and considers the hazing, as stated in the Applicant’s statement, performed by his fellow shipmates to be egregious in nature. However, the fact that Applicant contends that was hazed does not exonerate him from his misconduct. The Applicant accepted NJP, had his opportunity to submit matters of mitigation at NJP , and was found guilty. Based upon available records, nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. A preponderance of the evidence reviewed supports the conclusion that the Applicant committed a serious offense, that separation from the Naval Service was appropriate, and that a n Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was warranted. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant suggest that his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. 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 statement from his civilian counsel, and a current college transcript from Tyler Junior College. 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 misconduct was an aberration. To warrant an upgrade, the Applicant’s post-service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Board determined that the documentation submitted by the Applicant does not demonstrate if in-service misconduct was an aberration. The characterization of service received was appropriate considering the length of service and UCMJ violations. 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1000741

    Original file (ND1000741.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: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100238

    Original file (ND1100238.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant contends his post-service achievements warrant consideration for a discharge upgrade. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901778

    Original file (MD0901778.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no law or regulation which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.. On page 4, Item 8, in the instructions for completion of DD Form 293, the Applicant is notified to submit evidence "which substantiate or relate directly to your issues in Item 6” (Issues: Why an upgrade or change is requested and justification for the request). ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101702

    Original file (ND1101702.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade in his RE Code in order to re-enter the Navy as an OS2. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301865

    Original file (MD1301865.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no indication in the evidence of record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant was recommended for, or processed for, a medical board by proper authority. 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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200343

    Original file (MD1200343.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant’s record of serviceincluded 6105 counseling retention warning and one Special Court-Martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 7 specifications: Wrongfully striking numerous recruits with excessive force to correct the position of the recruits, o/o 24 May-26 Jul 2008; wrongfully hazing numerous recruits, ordering recruits to fall from the standing position to their knees onto the cement ground, o/o...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100009

    Original file (ND1100009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. ” 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. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

  • USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001943

    Original file (MD1001943.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...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901498

    Original file (MD0901498.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 COMPLETION OF REQUIRED ACTIVE SERVICE. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300717

    Original file (ND1300717.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: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...