Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700944

Original file (ND0700944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-MM2, USN
ND07-00944

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20070629 Characterization Received:

Narrative Reason: MISCONDUCT Authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:
Applicant’s Issues:       1. Reenlistment Opportunities
                           2. Never offered any help even though the Applicant asked for it
3. Discharge was inequitable because he served honorably for 52 months


Decision

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

Date: 20 080103             Location: Washington D.C          R epresentation :

Discussion

Issue 1: 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 Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue 2: ( ). The Applicant implies that he asked for help but was not offered any help . 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 his contention . Moreover, on 20040524, the Applicant’s reporting senior documented on the Applicant ’s performance evaluation that the Applicant was unwilling to accept help or guidance from his COC in solving his problems. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue 3: ( ). The Board 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 equitable grounds if the Applicant’s discharge is inconsistent with standards of discipline of the Naval service. There is credible evidence in the record that the Applicant committed misconduct on several occasions. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Applicant was not responsible for h is conduct or that he should not be held accountable for h is actions . When a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A 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 service was marred by two nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order), Article 92 (Dereliction of duty), and Article 134 (Failure to pay debts). A v iolation of Article 92 and 134 are considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special or General Courts Martial. An upgrade to honorable 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. 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 HONORABLE SERVICE FROM 2000 AUG 15 to 2002 NOV 19 ”

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)      20000415 - 20000814              Active:          2000815 - 20021118
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20021120      Years Contracted : ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20041216
Length of Service : 2 Yrs 0 Mths 27 D ys    Lost Time : 72 Days UA: 72 Days Confine d :
Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 94          Highest Rank /Rate :
Evaluation marks (# of occasions):       Performance: 3.0 ( 3 )       Behavior: 2.33 ( 3 )         OTA: 2.86
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): National Defense Service Medal, Strategic Deterent Patrol Pin.

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

20040512 :        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 92 – Failure to obey a lawful order .
         Awarded - RIR ( E-4 ); Restr for (45 days); Oral reprimand. RIR susp for 6 months

20040524:        Evaluation Report Comments: Petty Officer Edward has had personal problems during the reporting period that have affected his performance negatively. He has been unwilling to accept help or guidance from his COC in solving his problems. He has been unreliable for work during normal working hours due to his family problems and his inability to resolve them.

20040929:        Applicant declared a deserter.

20041022:        Applicant returns.

20041028:        NJP -- Viol UCMJ Art. 86 (2 specs) – Unauthorized Absence, Art. 92 – Dereliction of duty, Art. 134 ( 2 specs) – Failure to pay debts.
         Awarded - FOP ( UNKNOWN ) for (2 months); RIR (E-); Restr for (45 days).

20041105:        Commanding Officer comments: The Applicant was last seen stating to the quarterdeck watch, “I’m receiving and OTH, I’m out of here.”

20041216:        Applicant discharged in absentia.

Discharge Process

Date Notified:                                       20041024
Reason for Discharge:     -

Least Favorable Characterization:

Date Applicant Responded to Notification:                  20041028
Rights Elected at Notification:
         Consult with Counsel
         Obtain Copies of Documents
         Submit Statement(s) (date)
         Administrative Board
         GCMCA review

Commanding Officer Recommendation (date):        ( 20041105 )
Separation Authority (date):     Commander, SUBGROUP TEN ( 20041109 )
Reason for discharge directed: -
Characterization directed:
Date Applicant Discharged:        20041216 in Absentia

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 Aug 02 until 25 April 2005, 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 s 92 and 134.

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 | 2007_Navy | ND0700576

Original file (ND0700576.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 Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20031002 - 20040406Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20040407Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge:20060207Length of Service: 01 Yrs 10Mths01 DysLost Time:Days UA: Days Confined: Education...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0700324

Original file (MD0700324.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service was marred by two discharge warnings and four nonjudicial punishments for a violations of UCMJ Article(s) 86, Unauthorized absence and 92, Failure to obey order, regulation. 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: USMCR (DEP)20010220 - 20010827 Period...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700535

Original file (ND0700535.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service was marred by two retention warnings and the award of two nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 (Failure to go to appointed place of duty, Article 86 (Absent from appointed place of duty, and Article 134 (Drunkenness).An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700756

Original file (ND0700756.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s record of service was marred by one retention warning, two NJPs and two Summary Court-Martials (SCM) for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence), Article 87 (Missing movement),Article 90 (Willfully disobeying a commissioned officer), Article 92 (Dereliction of duty), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 134 (Drunkenness, Incapacitated for duty), and Article 134 (Breaking restriction). The Applicant contends that...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100080

Original file (ND1100080.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant contends medical issues contributed to his misconduct.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 authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800448

Original file (MD0800448.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. ” 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. Additionally, the Board has no authority to...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701171

Original file (MD0701171.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

” 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 through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial, the action of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700784

Original file (ND0700784.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 19890607 Years Contracted: ; Extension: Date of Discharge: 19930218 Length of Service: 03 Yrs 08 Mths 12 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: 48 Days Confined: 25 Education Level: Age at Enlistment: AFQT: 59 Highest Rank/Rate: STGSN Evaluation marks (# of occasions): Performance: 3.2(4) Behavior: 3.3(4) OTA: 3.40 (4.0 scale) Awards and Decorations (per DD 214): NDSM Medical/Service Record Entries Related to Characterization of Service or Basis for...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700648

Original file (ND0700648.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Absent any documentation provided by the Applicant for the Board to consider, the Board determined that the Applicant’s service record did not mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge. 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: USNR (DEP) -...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700367

Original file (ND0700367.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service was marred by 2 retention warnings, 6 nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 86 (unauthorized absence), 90 (willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer), 91 (insubordinate conduct towards a master chief petty officer), 92 (failure to obey written regulation), 95 (resistance), 112 (drunk on duty), 112a (wrongful use of a controlled substance) and 134 (unlawful entry) of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700944

Similar Decisions