Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801626

Original file (ND0801626.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-CTRSN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080729

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge: DRUG ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 1910-150

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP)      20000923 - 20010812              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20010813                                                   Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20031113                                                    Highest Rank/Rate:       CTRSN
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 01 D a y
Education Level:                  AFQT: 65
Evaluation M arks: Performance:    3.0 ( 2 ) Behavior: 2.0 ( 2 )         OTA: 2.33
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM

NJP :
- 20020730 : Art icle 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) (2 specs)
Awarded : Susp ended :

- 20030108 : Art icle 134 (Underage drinking)
Article 134 (Disorderly conduct; drunkenness)
Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C :

Retention Warnings:

- 20020730 : For A rticle 92 (2 specs) failure to obey order or regulation.
- 20030108 : For violation of the UCMJ Article 134-Underage drinking.

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) :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 2002 until 25 April 2005 Article 1910-150 (formerly 3630500), SEPARATION BY REASON OF DRUG ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE

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 ; Art icle 134 (Underage drinking) and Article 134 (Disorderly conduct; drunkenness).

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

Applicant’s Issues

1. Had medical issues which mitigated his misconduct

Decision

Date : 20 0 90223 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall DRUG ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE .

Discussion

Issue 1 : ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade discharge from separation due to mitigating circumstances. Specifically , the Applicant contends he was going through trying time s . I n 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 two retention warning, and two NJP’s for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 29 (Failure to obey order or regulation), 2 specifications; Article 134 (Underage drinking and D isorderly conduct; drunkenness). These are considered serious offenses which could have resulted in a punitive discharge and confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court martial. The command did not refer the Applicant for a court martial but opted instead for an administrative discharge . The Applicant provided no documentation in support of his claims nor did he provide any explanation concerning the nature of the problems. While the Applicant may feel his trying time s while in the Navy were the underlying causes of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was not responsible for his misconduct or should not be held accountable for his actions due to those problems. There was no documentation is his military record indicating trying times were the cause of any misconduct. The NDRB 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. 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. 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 during Board reviews. Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificate (if applicable); character witness statements; 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 companies, or other financial institutions; and documentation of a drug free lifestyle. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Besides the Applicant DD Form 293, no documentation was provided for review. To warrant an upgrade the Applicant’s post service 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. Should the Applicant feel h is post service conduct becomes substantial enough to warrant a personal appearance, there are veteran’s organizations, such as the American Legion, willing to provide guidance to assist former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade.

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 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 | 2010_Navy | ND1002290

Original file (ND1002290.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1. Therefore, the NDRB determined no change to the characterization of service is 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 the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800722

Original file (ND0800722.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: DD 215: 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...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901045

Original file (ND0901045.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).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. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “ Other Than Honorable,” was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service, UCMJ violations involved, and based on the limited...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700773

Original file (ND0700773.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant’s service was marred by one retention warnings, the award of two nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86 (Unauthorized Absence), Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a petty officer), Article 92 ( Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation), Article 107 (False official statement), Article 111 (Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle), Article 134 ( Drunkenness), Article 134 (False or unauthorized pass...
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200830

Original file (ND1200830.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation.The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether or not the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900696

Original file (ND0900696.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

:() .The Applicant is also seeking an upgrade to honorable based on the contention there was insufficient basis to establish a “pattern of misconduct” in his military record. 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 accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801343

Original file (ND0801343.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...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000847

Original file (ND1000847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.2. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101368

Original file (ND1101368.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board.The Applicant was separated from the Navy on 2 December 2009 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge due to Pattern of Misconduct. ” 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...
USMC | DRB | 2007_Marine | MD0701082

Original file (MD0701082.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 ServicePrior Service: Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20030108 - 20030120 Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20030121Years Contracted:; Extension: Date of Discharge: 20060908Length of Service: Yrs Mths17 Dys Lost Time: Days UA: Days Confined: Education...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801626

Similar Decisions