Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500924
Original file (ND1500924.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CSSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20150406
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Reenlistment Code:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:     
         Narrative Reason change to:     
        
Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:        USNR (DEP)       20030930 - 20040609     Active: 

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20040610     Age at Enlistment:
Period of Enlistment: Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20060113      Highest Rank/Rate: CSSN
Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 04 Day(s)
Education Level:         AFQT: 53
Evaluation Marks:        NFIR

Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):    

NJP:

- 20050112:      Article
         Article
         Article
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20050825:      Article 2 specifications
         Specification 1: Did on or about 18 August 2005, 0545, without authority, absent himself from his unit and did remain so until on or about 19 August 2005, 0545.
         Specification 2: Did on or about 22 August 2005, 0545, without authority, absent himself from his unit and did remain so until on or about 23 August 2005, 0545.
         Article - Did on or about 12 August 2005, 2100 hours, unlawfully strike a GSE Fireman in the back of the neck with a beer bottle.
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20051209:      Article - Did on or about 23 November 2005, wrongfully use provoking words, to wit; “F____ f_____ a__ n____” or words to that effect towards a Seaman, U. S. Navy.
         Awarded: Suspended:

- 20060109:      Article
         Awarded: Suspended:

SCM:

SPCM:

CC:

Retention Warning Counseling:

- 20051209:      For Article

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

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

         “2004 JUN 10”
         “01 07 03”
         “MILPERSMAN 1910-140”
         “JKA”

        
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, 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 11, effective 26 April 2005 until 19 May 2008, 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 IV, Para 403m(7)(b), Presumption Concerning Court-Martial Specifications.




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

Applicant’s Issues

1.       The Applicant contends that his discharge was unjust due to a lack of support from his chain of command to resolve an issue that he reported that ultimately led to his misconduct and discharge.

Decision

Date: 20150604            Location: Washington D.C.        Representation:

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 governmental 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 NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, and for of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (Absence without leave, 2 specifications), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward, WO, PO or NCO, 1 specification), Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation, 1 specification), and Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures, 1 specification). 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 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 was unjust due to a lack of support from his chain of command to resolve an issue that he reported that ultimately led to his misconduct and discharge. 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 the command treated him unfairly.

The Applicant was found guilty of misconduct in two separate commands over a one year period. In totality, the Applicant was found guilty of misconduct at four NJPs and was given a retention warning prior to his last NJP. The NDRB found that the Applicant did meet the requirements of discharge under MILPERSMAN 1910 -140 due to a pattern of misconduct and there was not any impropriety to his discharge. Furthermore, for the severity of misconduct and the number of occasion of misconduct, the command could have easily recommended the Applicant for an Under Other Than Honorable (OTH) Characterization of service. The command did not pursue an OTH but opted instead for the more lenient characterization of discharge. The NDRB determined that the Applicant’s discharge was proper, equitable and an upgrade would be inappropriate. 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 remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. 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: Effective 6 February 2015, the NDRB is authorized to change a NDRB Applicant’s Reenlistment Code if related to an accompanying change in discharge characterization or narrative, but this authority is strictly limited to those cases where an applicant’s narrative reason or characterization of discharge is changed and that change warrants revision of the previously issued reenlistment code. 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 | ND1101302

    Original file (ND1101302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, Articles 87, 91, 92,and 134. ” 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 | ND0901582

    Original file (ND0901582.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is requesting that his narrative reason be changed to a General discharge and the characterization of service upgraded to Honorable. Based on the seriousness and frequency of the offenses committed, performance evaluation marks, and lack of evidence of extenuating circumstances, the Board determined that an upgrade to Honorable is not appropriate.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801569

    Original file (MD0801569.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, medical and 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101403

    Original file (ND1101403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The NDRB determined that the characterization of the Applicant’s discharge was equitable and that relief based on this issue is 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 .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401684

    Original file (ND1401684.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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401322

    Original file (ND1401322.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends that youth and immaturity were the underlying cause for his discharge from the Navy.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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500981

    Original file (ND1500981.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 remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT - PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews :...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901774

    Original file (ND0901774.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant contends that he requested help and counseling to deal with his marital problems, especially after finding out that his wife was pregnant by another man but did not receive the assistance requested.Per the comments contained in the Applicant’s performance evaluation signed 30 July 2008, the Applicant had numerous problems influenced by his personal life and had been sent to counseling for various issues with “ little positive results. Based on a review of the evidence of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800011

    Original file (ND0800011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: 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 Veterans Affairs Health Care Eligibility Letter, Constituent Consent...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801725

    Original file (ND0801725.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, the record of evidence does not show any evidence of processing for a discharge other than the one given to him for the pattern of misconduct. The NDRB determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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 believe that the decision...