Upgrade.Vet

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801814

Original file (ND0801814.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-FN, USN

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20080828

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:

Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN 3630600 (COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE)

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

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: US N R (DEP) 19970630 - 19970723        Active:          199608 - 199610 NFIR

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 19970724     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20001025     Highest Rank/Rate: FN
Length of Service : Y ear s M onth s 02 D a ys
Education Level:        AFQT: 35
Evaluation M arks: Performance: NFIR Behavior: NFIR OTA: NFIR

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): NONE

Periods of UA : 20000604-20000605 ( 2 days)
20000711-20000808 (29 days) [Extracted from DD Form 214, Block 29]

NJP : NFIR S CM : NFIR SPCM: NFIR C C : NFIR Retention Warning Counseling: NFIR

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 :

Oth er Documentation :

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

Applicant’s Issues
1. Educational o pportunities .
2. Mitigating circumstances .

Decision

Date: 20 0 9 0402 Location: Washington D.C . R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
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. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning , regarding .

: ( ) . The Applicant contends his medical condition (claustrophobia) was a mitigating circumstance in him making a wrong choice to go in an unauthorized absence status from the USS SAIPAN. 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 re cord of se rvice was marred by violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 86 (U A, for a total of 31 days). This is considered a serious offense , punishable by 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. In addition to his legal troubles, medical documentation shows the Applicant was recommended for an Expeditious Administrative Separation due to suicidal ideations and claustrophobia. The Applicant has a long history of mood instability, volatile personal relationships, anger, and recurrent suicidal ideations with prior attempts ( which could have resulted in a UCMJ charge for violation of Article 83 ( Fraudulent enlistment) due to the Applicant not disclosing this at the time of his enlistment). The Applicant initially served on the USS AUSTIN for six months prior to be ing transferred to the Transient Personnel Unit (TPU), where he served the next two years. It was noted there was no documentation mentioning claustrophobia during the time the applicant served on the USS Austin. The Applicant was then assigned to the USS SAIPAN for a total 47 days, 31 days of which he was in an unauthor ized absence before he was transferred back to TPU. In total, the Applicant served over 80 percent of his time in the Navy at the TPU . While the Applicant’s record documents claustrophobia, it does not state the Applicant was incapable of making a distinction between right or wrong actions nor was he unable to make sound decisions concerning his conduct. The Applicant was fully responsible for his misconduct and aware he enter ed into a UA status. The Board determined the awarded discharge 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; attending or completion of higher education (official transcripts) 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 Applicants statement on the DD Form 293, he provided service-related medical documentation as evidence on his behalf. 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. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “General (Under Honorable Conditions)”, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service 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 30, dated 7 November 2000, effective 30 August 2000 until 24 January 2001, 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 86 (UA).

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 | 2005_Navy | ND0501488

Original file (ND0501488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ex-AOAA, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800996

Original file (ND0800996.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated 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 Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe): Pertinent Regulation/Law A. After a thorough review of the available...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801609

Original file (ND0801609.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the awarded discharge narrative reason was appropriate and a change 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. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB...
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101580

Original file (ND1101580.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and the administrative separation process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .Since 15 years have elapsed since the date of his discharge, the...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800362

Original file (ND0800362.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

However, after a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s misconduct, and that the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient to convince the Board that an upgrade was appropriate at this time.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible...
NAVY | DRB | 2014_Navy | ND1401165

Original file (ND1401165.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. 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 change to CONDITION, NOT A DISABILITY. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former...
NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700025

Original file (ND0700025.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 ().The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy can be attributed to his medical conditions(a deviated septum and phobia).The government enjoys a presumption of regularity in the conduct of its affairs. The Applicant provided evidence of post-service conduct in support of his request for...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001621

Original file (ND1001621.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Applicant seeks discharge upgrade to reenlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. ” 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 does not have the authority to change a narrative...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600232

Original file (ND0600232.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Due to continued misconduct, AOAA J _was again awarded NJP on 020920 for violating my restriction orders. At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation of post service character and conduct to mitigate the misconduct that resulted in the characterization of discharge.
NAVY | DRB | 2012_Navy | ND1200989

Original file (ND1200989.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20011207 - 20011217Active: USNR (DEP) 20020125 - 20020218 COG Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20020219Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20051019Highest Rank/Rate: SH3Length of Service: Year(s) Month(s) 00 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 38EvaluationMarks:Performance:4.0(2)Behavior:4.0(2)OTA: 3.92Awards...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801814

Similar Decisions