Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800739

Original file (ND0800739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-EMFA, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080118

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) 19950921 - 19951024                 Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19951025     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension          Date of Discharge: 19980619
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 25 D a ys      Education Level:       Age at Enlistment:     AFQT: 37
Highest Rank /Rate :       EMFA      Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): , ,

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP :
- 19970911 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey)
Awarded : , , Susp ended :

- 19980602 : Art icle 86 ( UA, F ailure to go ), 4 specifications
Article 92 (Der e liction of duty )
Article 108 (Wrongful destruction of government property)
Article 134 (Disorderly conduct)
Awarded : , , Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:
- 19970911 : For NJP/misconduct.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
DD 214:         Service/ 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 Congress m ember :

Other Documentation (Describe) :

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Medical problems.
Decision

Date: 20 08 1106 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall OTHER THAN HONORABLE .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT .

Discussion

Issue 1: (Equity) RELIEF NOT WARRANTED. The Applicant contends his mitigate his 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’s record of service was marred by 2 NJP’s for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Articles 86 (UA) , Article 92 (Failure to obey) , Article 108 (Wrongful destruction of government property) , and Article 134 (Disorderly conduct) . Violations of Articles 92 and 108 are considered serious offenses, punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and up to imprisonment if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial.

While he may feel a medical condition was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the evidence of record does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or he should not be held accountable for his actions. The Applicant’s misconduct occurred well over a year after his initial visit to the doctor for anger and stress . A review of the Applicant’s medical record indicates on 31 May 1996 he was seen for anger and high stress levels. His medical records indicate he stated to his doctor he wanted to be reclassified into another rate because he had no interest in the one he was trained in. H e was found to be stable , assessed to be low risk for self harm or to harm others and found fit for full duty. There are no other visits recorded in his medical record for stress or anger management. On 21 August 1996, the Applicant indicated in his own hand writing on S tandard F orm 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, “I am in good health upon transfer”. Subsequently after his transfer, the Appl icant began violating the UCMJ and was awarded his NJP’s. The Board could find no connection between his misconduct and a medical issue which would cause his misconduct and there was no medical documentation on record or submitted in support of his claim.

The Applicant has requested an upgrade to his characterization to “Honorable”. W hen the quality of a member’s service has met the standards of accepted conduct and performance of duty for military personnel , it is appropriate to characterize that service under “H onorable ” 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 Board acknowledges the fact the Appl i cant’s misconduct represents a significant negative aspect in his military record and the awarded characterization was appropriate.

The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides 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 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. Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record ; documentation of community or church service ; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities ; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card company’s, or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug free lifestyle; and character witness statements. 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.

The Applicant provided a personal statement and as evidence of post-service accomplishments. The Applicant's efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited post service documentation provided an upgrade would be inappropriate.

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

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective 12 December 1997 until
29 March 2000, 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 108 .

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 or is referred to a court martial 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 or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable Discharge is authorized, 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 other medical related reasons. 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 special 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. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

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 | 2015_Navy | ND1500869

Original file (ND1500869.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Characterization of Service Received: (per DD 214) GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE) . ” 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000741

Original file (ND1000741.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. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101836

Original file (ND1101836.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant seeks an upgrade in order to re-enlist in the Armed Forces.2. Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, his command administratively processed him for separation due to a Pattern of Misconduct.The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived his rights to consult with a qualified...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1201849

Original file (ND1201849.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant requests an upgrade to receive G.I. 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...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800804

Original file (MD0800804.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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801790

Original file (ND0801790.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20010117 - 20010116Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010117Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040206Length of Service: Years Month19 DaysEducation Level:Age at Enlistment:25AFQT: 48Highest Rank/Rate:E3EvaluationMarks:Performance:3(1) Behavior:2(1)OTA: 2.83Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods of UA/CONF:...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800796

Original file (MD0800796.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PERSONALITY DISORDER.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800456

Original file (ND0800456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Each Violation of UCMJ Article 92, 107 and 108 constitute the “commission of a serious offense”, the discharge basis in this case. ” 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 upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.
NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301875

Original file (ND1301875.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19960516 - 19961229Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 19961230Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20000801Highest Rank/Rate:EMFALength of Service:Year(s)Month(s) 02 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 47EvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIRBehavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):NONEPeriods of...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900416

Original file (ND0900416.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB reviews discharges on a case-by-case basis and no evidence can be found in the Applicant’s service record to support his statement. The NDRB is not reviewing other service member’s misconduct or administrative or disciplinary actions against them. 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...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800739

Similar Decisions