Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801678
Original file (ND0801678.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-OSSN, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080804
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)      20020624 - 20031108              Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20031109     Period of E nlistment : Years Extension         Date of Discharge: 20050110
Length of Service : Y ear M onth s 02 D a ys       Education Level:        Age at Enlistment:       AFQT: 49
Highest Rank /Rate :       OSS N      Evaluation M arks: Performance:    NFIR      Behavior: NFIR    OTA: NFIR
Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      NDSM GWOTEM

Periods of UA : 20040329-20040331 (2 D ays )
20040528-20041130 (186 D ays )

NJP :
- 20040226 : Art icle 86 ( UA), 7 spec ification s
Article 91 (Insubordinate conduct toward a CPO)
 Awarded : Susp ended :

S CM : SPCM: C C : Retention Warnings:

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. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 August 2002 until 30 May 2005, Article 1910-106, SEPARATION IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL .

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 .



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

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Was told he would receive an OTH and after 6 months it would automatically be upgraded to honorable.
2. Seeking VA medical assistance .
3 . Post service conduct.
Decision

Date: 20 08 1121 Location: Washington D.C .       R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT - MARTIAL.

Discussion

 : The Applicant contends at the time of his discharge he was informed he would get an “Under O ther T han H onorable ” and it would be upgraded to “H onorable ” automatically after six months. He is also seeking an upgrade in order to obtain VA medical benefits . The record reflects the Applicant did receive an “Under O ther T han H onorable” condition in lieu of trial by court-martial. Discharges are not automatically upgraded by the Navy after six months of separation from the service. Additionally, these are 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 , specifically the paragraph s concerning Automatic Upgrades and , for additional information regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he is now on the right track and since his discharge in 2005, he has matured and is currently waiting to enroll in school. He indicated a criminal background report was attached to this petition. However, there was no criminal background report enclosed with the DD-293 Form or received under separate correspondence. 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 a NJP for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (UA) and Article 91 (Insubordination). Violations of Article 86 in excess of 30 days and Article 91 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 Applicant elected to be separated in lieu of a trial by court-martial.

For the edification of the Applicant, t here 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. Verifiable proof of post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. 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. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient 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 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801185

    Original file (ND0801185.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence in the record or presented by the Applicant to support his contention that the leading yeoman was responsible for the “Other Than Honorable Discharge” characterization of his discharge.A “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” is appropriate if the member’s service has been honest and faithful but significant negative aspects of the member’s conduct or performance outweighs positive aspects of the member’s military record. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801315

    Original file (ND0801315.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Should the Applicant obtain additional evidence or post service documentation he may wish to apply for a personal appearance. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801333

    Original file (ND0801333.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (DRUG ABUSE).Discussion :The Applicant contends she was placed on certain medications while on active duty and with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions) ” she would be able to get these medications from the VA. 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. In...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800985

    Original file (ND0800985.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. The Board determined based on the limited documentation provided a change would be inappropriate and the characterization of service received, “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, was an appropriate...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900412

    Original file (ND0900412.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 issues presented 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 | 2008_Navy | ND0801390

    Original file (ND0801390.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 sufficient post service documentation for the Board to review in consideration of a characterization upgrade.When the quality of a member’s service has met the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801636

    Original file (ND0801636.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE).Discussion :() The Applicant contends the characterization of his discharge should be upgraded because the separation was based on one isolated incident in 20 months of service and he had already warned his commanding officer and masterchief something might happen if he and another sailor were not separated. The Applicant has submitted documentation of post service conduct in support of his request for an...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801369

    Original file (ND0801369.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The record reflects the Applicant was notified of the administrative processing for separation due misconduct based on: 1) A pattern of misconduct, and 2) Commission of a serious offense and alcohol rehabilitation failure. 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...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801591

    Original file (ND0801591.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.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 Dissenting Opinion The Applicant’s rape charge, the basis for his discharge, was expunged. ”...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1000041

    Original file (ND1000041.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The command and separating authority approved his request, and he was discharged accordingly. ” 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. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities...