Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601184

Original file (ND0601184.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTOSN, USN
ND06-01184

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request:

Application Received:                               20 060912
Characterization of Service:
Narrative Reason for Separation:
Discharge Authority :                                MILPERSMAN 3630600
Last Duty Assignment/ Command at Discharge:       NAVINTACT, FITCPAC, SAN DIEGO, CA

Applicant’s Request:
         Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to:
         Review Requested:
         Representation:

Decision:

Date of Decision:                                            20 070628
Location of Board:                                  Washington D.C.
Complete Service Record:
Complete Medical Record:
Complete Discharge Package:

Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge:
Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge:

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Summary of Service:

Prior Service:
Inactive: USNR (DEP)                                19931014 - 19940724
Active:

Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment:                                 19940725
Years Contracted :                                   4 ; 24 month extension
Date of Discharge:                                  19960109
Length of Service
         Active:                                     01 Yr 05 Mths 15 D ays
Time Lost During This Period:                      None

Education Level:                                    12
Age at this Enlistment:                                     17
AFQT:                                                 74
Highest Rate/Rank:                                   CTOSN

Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):
                                                      Performance : 4.0
         Behavior: 4.0
         OTA: 2.55 (2)

Awards and Decorations (as listed on the DD Form 214):
National Defense Service Medal

Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Narrative Reason for Separation

19951012 :        NJP for violations of UCMJ:
         Article 134 (making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds, 13 specifications, 29 June – 12 October 1995, four – insufficient funds, eight – account closed, NEX has contacted 44 times with no attempt to resolve.)
         Award: 30 days restriction.
         No indication of appeal in the record.

19951024:        Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as under other than hon orable conditions by reason of m isconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

19951106:        Following consultation with council the Applicant elected to exercise his right to an administrative board.

19951117:        An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found th at the Applicant had committed m isconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, that such misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge with a general (under honorable conditions).

19951121:        Commanding Officer, Fleet Intelligence Training Center, Pacific, recommended to Chief of Naval Personnel the Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of m isconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “I concur with the findings and recommendation of the administrative board”.

19951228:        Chief of Naval Personnel directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions ) by reason of m isconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY]

Discharge Process :
Date Notified :                                        19951024
Reason for Discharge                                due to:
Least Favorable Characterization Authorized :

Date Applicant R esponded to N otification:                 19951106
Rights E lected at N otification :
Consult with Counsel
Administrative Board
Obtain Copies
Submit Statement(s) (date)
Administrative Board Date:                         19951117
Findings:                 By UNANIMOUS VOTE MISCONDUCT due to the COMMISSIO N OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE supported .
         Recommendation on Separation:             By ,
Recommendation on Characterization:               By , GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDTITIONS)
Co mmanding Officer R ecommendation (date):        ( 19951121)
Separation Authority (date):      Chief of Naval Personnel ( 19951228 )
         Narrative reason directed :
         Characterization directed:
Date Applicant Discharged:                         19960109

Additional Information Considered by Board

Type of d ocumentation submitted by t he Applicant and considered by the Board

        Document Type                                        #Pages
Related to Period of Service Under Review :
         Service/Medical Record :                            1

Related to Post-Service Period:
         Community Service :                                   0
         Education :                                           1
         Employment :                                          0
         Health /Medical :                                     0
         Character Statements:                               0
         Criminal Records Checks:                                    0
         Additional Statements from Applicant:             0
Other Documentation      (Describe Below)                 0

Total Number of Pages:                            2

Applicant’s Issues as Summarized by the Board:
The Applicant submitted the following issues :
1. Employment
2. Unfair to be punished for rest of life based on bounced checks 10 years ago
3. 2 ^nd Chance

Issue 1 : in issue which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant , the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Decisional Issues:

Issue s 2 and 3:

For the information of the Applicant, an administrative discharge is not punishment. The characterization of service is a description or classification of the total service provided during the members enlistment. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A General ( under honorable conditions ) d ischarge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by a no njudicial punishment proceeding for 13 violations of UCMJ Article 134 (dishonorably fail to pay) each violation is considered the commission of a serious offense , the misconduct for which the Applicant was discharge d . Each serious offense violation carries a maximum penalty of a Bad Conduct Discharge and 1 year of imprisonment . The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of s ervice.

The Applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because he deserves a second chance . The Board reviews the propriety and equity of each Applicant’s discharge individually. Regulations permit relief on equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the n aval service. Based upon the record , nothing indicates that the Applicant’s discharge was in any way inconsistent with the standards of discipline in the United States Navy. The evidence supported the commission of a serious offense for which the Applicant was administratively discharged. T hat separation was appropriate, and a General (under h onorable conditions ) characterization of service was warranted .

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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Medical Record Entries, Elements of Discharge and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found the Applicant’s discharge proper and equitable.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 971212, Article 3630605, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL 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 .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe that 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 . 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 : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. 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 Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’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 Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board 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 subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, 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 “PTSD . ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - 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 Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

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 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.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the 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 | ND0700753

Original file (ND0700753.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 that Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: “ CONTINUOUS ACTIVE SERVICE 900906-940824 ” The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. ”...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601015

Original file (ND0601015.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-SA, USNND06-01015Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20060725Narrative Reason for Separation: misconductCharacter of Service:Discharge Authority: MILPERSMAN 3630620Last Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: USS JOHN C STENNIS (CVN74)Applicant’s Request:Narrative Reason change to:NONE REQUESTEDCharacterization change to:Review Requested:Representation: Decision: Date of Decision:20070614Vote (characterization/reason)/ Location of Board: Washington D.C.Complete...
USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1000729

Original file (MD1000729.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. Paragraph 6210,...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600039

Original file (ND0600039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Specification 2: SN D_ (Applicant) did at fleet information warfare center on or about 11 Dec 00, with intent to deceive, make to his CPO an official statement during suspect’s rights acknowledgement statement state that he did not commit larceny which was totally false and was then known by SN D_ (Applicant) to be so false. The names, and votes of the members of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000811

Original file (ND1000811.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant was advised that he was being processed under a dual basis for separation: Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense) and Misconduct (Civilian Conviction) in accordance with Articles 1910-142 and 1910-144 of the MILPERSMAN. In accordance with Article 1910-704 of the MILPERSMAN, “ When an administrative board finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports one or more of the reasons for separation and recommends retention, but the Separation Authority recommends...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501134

Original file (ND0501134.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

discharge Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense.041213: Commander, Navy Computer Incident Response Team, advised Commander, Navy Personnel Command, of Applicant’s discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has met the standard of acceptable conduct and performance, it is appropriate to characterize that service...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600215

Original file (ND0600215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

of Veterans Affairs, dtd December 5, 2005 (not signed) Ltr from Applicant addressed to One World Trade Center, dtd December 5, 2005 (not signed)Undtd Ltr from Applicant, received May 17, 2006 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 19950119 - 19950206 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 19950207 Date of Discharge: 19951106 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 00...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000808

Original file (ND1000808.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. The Applicant was advised...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01192

Original file (ND04-01192.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :990513: Evaluation Report & Counseling Record: Over an approximate nine month period in 1998, Applicant knowingly wrote a minimum of 29 bad checks to at least six separate military organizations in Florida and Virginia in excess of $3,700.00.990513: DD-214: Applicant's discharge...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801542

Original file (MD0801542.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.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. The Board determined an upgrade would be inappropriate.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, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0601184

Similar Decisions