Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800271

Original file (ND0800271.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-OS3, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20071116

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request:     Characterization change to:
                           Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20000810 - 20000823              Active:
Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20000824      Period of enlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 20050601
Length of Service : Yrs Mths 08 D ys      Education Level:         Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 43
Highest Rank /Rate : OS2    Evaluation marks: Performance: 2.0 ( 4 )     Behavior: 2.0 ( 4 )          OTA: 2.57
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle Pistol

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJPs :
         20041024 : Art(s) 86 . Awarded - Susp -

Retention Warnings: .

Types of Documents Submitted

Related 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 Representat ion :              From Member of Congress:
Other Documentation (Describe)

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Reenlistment Opportunities
2. Discharge was inequitable because the Applicant was at the end of his EOS
3. Discharge was not proper because the Applicant was not part of the proceedings
4 . Discharge was inequitable because the Applicant was taken off of Class – C liberty but a subsequent command punished him again.
5. Discharge was improper because the Applicant was not taken to court martial or Captain’s Mast and never charged under the UCMJ
6. Discharge was improper because the civilian conviction was in Iceland and the Navy could do nothing about it
7. Discharge was improper because the civilian conviction was a customs violation and the result was a small fine
8. I solated incident
9. Service Record

Decision

Date: 20 08 0306 Location: Washington D.C R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) .

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 Applicant is directed to the Addendum regarding .

Issue 2: ( ). The Applicant was administratively discharged from the Navy before the end of his initial four year enlistment contract and the 10 month extension that the Applicant voluntarily signed for on 20031020.

Issue 3: ( ). Members of the armed forces may be separated by local commanders with Special Court Martial convening authority without providing the member the opportunity to elect and Administrative Board if the member has less than six years of service. The process is administrative.

Issue 4: ( ). The Applicant implies that he was punished twice for the same offense . 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 that the command unfairly singled him out for ridicule or discipline. The Applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.

Issue s 5 - 9: ( ). 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. A Sailor may be separated for a commission of a serious military or civilian offense when the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. A military or civilian conviction is not required for discharge under this provision. Additionally, w hen a Sailor ’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. A general ( under 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 his service, was marred by the award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for one violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized absence) and a civilian conviction for wrongfully taking items from the agreed area without declaration, driving without a proper license, and endangering a police officer. Wrongfully taking items from the agreed area without declaration is equivalent to violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (Failure to obey a regulation ) and endangering a police officer is equivalent to violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 ( endangerment ). A violation of UCMJ Article s 92 and 134 are both considered serious offense s for which a punitive discharge is authorized if adjudged by a Special and 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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A . Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 11, effective 26 April 2005 until Present, 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 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

USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300505

Original file (MD1300505.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 | 2012_Navy | ND1200325

Original file (ND1200325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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...
USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1300647

Original file (MD1300647.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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501302

Original file (ND0501302.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) does not travel; all hearings are held in Washington, DC at the Washington Navy Yard and that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation The Applicant submitted the following documentation for the Board’s consideration in addition to the service and medical record:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801404

Original file (ND0801404.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from 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.Besides the personal statement provided on the DD Form-293, the Applicant provided copies of his achievements and community service. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100530

Original file (ND1100530.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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.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 .Since 15 years have...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801727

Original file (ND0801727.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

She waived her right to an administrative hearingand representation by qualified military or civilian counsel.The Applicant’s allegation that the command threatened her with a dishonorable discharge is without merit since she had an opportunity and did consult with counsel before waving her right to an administrative board.Based on the seriousness of the offenses committed and the lack of mitigating circumstances, the Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900061

Original file (MD0900061.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

SNM received NJP for violation of Article 92 Retention Warning Counseling: for which he was placed on Battalion restriction. SNM is also informed that further incidents of this nature may result in NJP and other administrative action to include but not limited to administrative separation. The Board determined the Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflected a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member...
USMC | DRB | 2011_Marine | MD1101925

Original file (MD1101925.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However,after excluding the misconduct for which she was subsequently acquittedpost-service and based on the remaining misconduct of record (NJP for UA; 6105 retention warning, and civil conviction), the Board determined that partial relief in upgrading her discharge to General (Under Honorable Conditions) was warranted. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700001

Original file (ND0700001.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Complete Service Record: Complete Medical Record: Complete Discharge Package: Regarding propriety, the Board found the discharge: Regarding equity, the Board found the discharge: 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. 20030418: NJP for violations of UCMJ: Article 134: Drunkenness Article 86: Unauthorized absence Elements of Discharge:...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800271

Similar Decisions