Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700388

Original file (ND0700388.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTT3, USN
ND07-00388

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20070207 Characterization Received:

Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Discharge inequitable for isolated incident
                           2. Service Record
                           3. Medical conditions adversely effected performance and conduct
                           4. Post Service

Decision

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

Date: 20 071018                                     Location: Washington D.C.

Discussion

Issue s 1 & 2: ( ). When a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. An under other than honorable conditions discharge 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 conduct during the current period of service, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of h er service was marred by consistent, intentional absences from h er unit, one nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles 86 (Unauthorized Absence) and Article 107 (False Official Statement). Violation of UCMJ Article 107 is considered a serious offense for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.

Issue 3: ( ). 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. The NDRB generally does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition, the implied incorrect diagnosis, nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s misconduct. By the Applicant’s own admission, M edical began the Medical Board process and she chose to take the wrong exit.

Issue 4: ( ). The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, 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 the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Normally, to permit relief, a procedural impropriety or inequity must have been found to have existed during the period of enlistment in question. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that 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. The Applicant provided no documentation of post-service accomplishments other than her statement . The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing than those provided. For example, the Applicant could have produced evidence of continuing educational pursuits, a verifiable employment record, documentation of community service, and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities. The Board determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.

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, 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 :

         “ CONTINOUS HONORABLE SERVICE 01JUL98 UNTIL 01JAN02”
“ 26 SEP03-24 OCT 03, 27 OCT 03 TO 06 NOV 03 ”

The NDRB will recommend to the C ommander, Navy Personnel Command , that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19971220 - 19980710              Active:          19980711 - 20020101
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020102               Years Contracted : ; Extension:          Date of Discharge: 20040120
Length of Service : 02 Yrs 00 Mths 18 D ys          Lost Time : Days UA: 39 Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 69          Highest Rank /Rate : CTT2
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 3.0 ( 2 )       Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )          OTA: 2.57
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL, GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL, KOSOVO CAMPAIGN MEDAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL

Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for Discharge

20020102:        Reenlisted this date for a term of 4 years.

20030315:        Evaluation Report: Failed Fall 2002 PFA.

20031223:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 – (3 Specs), Spec 1: Absence from her organization 20030909 to 20030910; Spec 2: Absence from her organization 20030926 to 20031024; Spec 3: Absence from her organization 20031027 to 20031106; viol UCMJ Art. 107 – Making false official statement.
         Awarded - FOP ($645.00) for (2 months); RIR (E-4); Restr for (60 days) a total of 48 days pre-trial restriction was credited towards restriction awarded and the remaining 12 days restriction was suspended for a period of 6 months .

20031224:         Evaluation Report: Failed Fall 2003 PFA. Constitutes second failure

Discharge Process

Date Notified:                                       20031223
Reason for Discharge:     -

Least Favorable Characterization:

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  20031224
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel
         Obtain Copies of Documents
         Submit Statement(s) (date)
         Administrative Board
         GCMCA review

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20040105 )
Separation Authority (date):     COMMANDANT, NAVAL DISTRICT WASHINGTON ( 20040120 )
Reason for discharge directed: -
Characterization directed:
Date Applicant Discharged:       20040120

Types of Documents Submitted by Applicant and Considered By Board

Related to Military Service:      Service and/or Medical Record:          Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education:
         Health/Medical Records:                   Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:

Additional Statements From Applicant:    From Representative:
Other Documentation (Describe)

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 25 January 2004, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605], 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 107.

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 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 : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided 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 granted 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

USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701164

Original file (MD0701164.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined that there was clearly a pattern of misconduct and an upgrade to general (under honorable conditions) would be inappropriate.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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900066

Original file (MD0900066.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion :().The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade because the punishment he received was too severe for his minor misconduct.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. The Applicant appears to understand his administrative separation was part of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0701152

Original file (ND0701152.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 Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Whenever a member is being processed...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000860

Original file (ND1000860.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Narrative Reason for Discharge:Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN ” 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.
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300730

Original file (ND1300730.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. Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900244

Original file (ND0900244.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the lack of post service documentation provided an upgrade...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801374

Original file (ND0801374.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant has requested an upgrade in her characterization to “Honorable”. However, due to the misconduct the Applicant’s record of service did not warrant the requested “Honorable” characterization.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 in your...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1400258

Original file (ND1400258.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, as a result of the PTSD claim, the NDRB included a psychiatrist on the board.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700920

Original file (ND0700920.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Applicant’s Issues: 1. 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 Discharge Process Date Notified: 20060927Reason for Discharge: - Least Favorable Characterization: Date Applicant Responded to Notification: 20060927 Rights Elected at Notification: Consult with...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800660

Original file (ND0800660.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 THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700388

Similar Decisions