Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700614

Original file (ND0700614.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MSSA, USN
ND07-00614

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20070405 Characterization Received:
Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Immaturity, marital problems interfered with ability to serve
                           2. Post-service conduct

Decision

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

Date: 20 071129                     Location: Washington D.C          R epresentation :

Discussion

Issue 1 ( ). The Applicant con tends his disciplinary problems were the result of his immaturity and marital problems giving him trouble in adjusting to military life . The NDRB recognizes that serving in the U.S. Navy is challenging. Our country is fortunate to have men and women willing to endure the hardships and sacrifices required in order to serve their country. It must be noted that most members of the Navy serve honorably and therefore earn their honorable discharges. In fairness to those members of the Navy, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Sailors receive no higher characterization than is due.

Issue 2 ( ). The Applicant provided evidence of post-service employment, community service, and references concerning his good character. 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. The NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge 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. After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge.

Issue 3 ( ). Although not raised by the Applicant, the Board reviewed the record to determine if the reason for discharge, Misconduct – Commission of a Seriou s Offense, was supported by the evidence. A “serious offense” for the purposes of administrative separation, is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for which a punitive discharge is authorized upon conviction at special or general court-martial. T he Board noted that the Applicant’s service record documented a single nonjudicial punishment for several violations of the UCMJ, Article 86, Absence without leave (UA), and 2 violations of the UCMJ, Article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation. The Article 86 offenses all appeared to be of a “failure to go” type offense. Such offenses, while appropriately punished, do not meet the definition of a “serious offense” for the purposes of administrative separation for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The Article 92 offenses were dereliction of duty offenses. These are considered “serious offenses ” if they were committed “willfully” rather than by neglect. The record does not specifically indicate whether or not the Applicant’s derelictions of duty were willful or negligent. However, the government is entitled to a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs . Therefore, the Board concluded that there was either additional misconduct constituting a serious offense not reflected in the record, or that the one or both of the Applicant’s derelictions of duty was willful. The Board found that the Applicant’s separation code, GKQ, reflect ing a discharge based on an approved recommendation from an administrative discharge board , supported its reliance on the presumption of regularity in this case . Although the administrative discharge proceedings were not found in the Applicant’s service record, t he Board presumed that the proceedings were conducted in a proper and regular manner, and found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.
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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      19981218 - 19990113              Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19990831      Years Contracted :        Date of Discharge: 20011227      Lost Time:
Length of Service : Active: 02 Yrs 03 Mths 25 D ys          Inactive: 00 Yrs 00 Mths 03 D ys
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 39          Highest Rank /Rate : MSSN
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 2.0 ( 1 )       Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )                  OTA: 1.83
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NONE

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

20011022 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 (14 specifications) -. Unauthorized absence s between 20000417 and 20011009; Art. 92 (2 specifications) - Dereliction in the performance of duties on 20010426 and 20010729.
         Awarded - FOP ( $ 585.00 ) for ( 2 months); RIR ( E-2 ); Restr for ( 45 days); Extra duties ( 45 days) .

Discharge Process

Date Notified:                                       NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Reason for Discharge:
Least Favorable Characterization:

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel
         Obtain Copies of Documents
         Submit Statement(s) (date)
         Administrative Board
         GCMCA review

Administrative Board Date , if any :       NOT FOUND IN RECORD

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):
Separation Authority (date):     NOT FOUND IN RECORD
Reason for discharge directed:
Characterization directed:
Date Applicant Discharged:       20011227

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), Change 31, dated 20 Feb ruary 200 1, effective 25 Jan uary 20 01 until 21 Aug ust 20 02, 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, Failure to obey order or regulation (Willful dereliction of duty).

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, 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.

Employmen t / 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801497

Original file (ND0801497.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined based on the limited documentationprovided and the circumstances surrounding the situation that an upgrade would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the nature of the UCMJ violation involved.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the...
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1300011

Original file (ND1300011.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant elected rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board, however, the NDRB found no evidence in the record to show the Applicant appeared before an administrative separation board. In the Applicant’s third enlistment, the NDRB determined, even after reviewing the 13 character references, that he warranted a discharge Under Other Than Honorable...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902475

Original file (ND0902475.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700585

Original file (ND0700585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings and 4 nonjudicial punishments for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 92 (dereliction of duty) and 134 (incapacitating oneself for performance of duties). 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700593

Original file (ND0700593.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, the Applicant was not assessed to be a risk to harm self or others.In accordance with regulation, when separation processing is warranted for any reason in addition to personality disorder (convenience of the government), dual or multiple processing is required. ]20050203: Balboa Naval Hospital recommended the Applicant for separation due to no significant improvement following medical and therapeutic treatments for previously diagnosed impulsivity and...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900532

Original file (ND0900532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 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...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101988

Original file (MD1101988.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment 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 for a personal appearance hearing for a period of...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700473

Original file (ND0700473.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB found that the Applicant's service was equitably characterized.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 application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge....
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200804

Original file (ND1200804.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801150

Original file (ND0801150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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 conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.At this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700614

Similar Decisions